Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Noam Chomsky and the CIA

wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 12:35:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Did you know that Chomsky does not have a file at the CIA?

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com...

Given Chomsky's reputation, there's only a very short list of explanations:

1) The CIA is grossly incompetent, and somehow wholly ignored Chomsky even though guys like Nixon had him on his enemies' list.
2) Chomsky is some sort of criminal mastermind, has broken into CIA records, and somehow erased his file.
3) Chomsky is bought and paid for by the CIA.

Your thoughts on this?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ProudBlackWoman
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 12:50:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 12:47:21 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
4. They lied.

Most likely. The CIA is not taken seriously where I'm from.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 1:03:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 12:50:09 AM, ProudBlackWoman wrote:
At 3/27/2013 12:47:21 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
4. They lied.

Most likely. The CIA is not taken seriously where I'm from.

Why would the CIA lie about this?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 1:05:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
BTW, that wasn't a question of incredulity, I'm seriously asking for opinions on why the CIA would lie about this.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 1:15:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 1:03:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/27/2013 12:50:09 AM, ProudBlackWoman wrote:
At 3/27/2013 12:47:21 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
4. They lied.

Most likely. The CIA is not taken seriously where I'm from.

Why would the CIA lie about this?

So people think its difficult to get on the CIA's list and thus take less precautions in engaging in activism.

It also makes the government seem less terrifying if they don't have a file on Chomsky.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 1:21:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 1:15:08 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/27/2013 1:03:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/27/2013 12:50:09 AM, ProudBlackWoman wrote:
At 3/27/2013 12:47:21 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
4. They lied.

Most likely. The CIA is not taken seriously where I'm from.

Why would the CIA lie about this?

So people think its difficult to get on the CIA's list and thus take less precautions in engaging in activism.

It also makes the government seem less terrifying if they don't have a file on Chomsky.

But if the government had a file on ANYONE, it would probably be on someone like Chomsky. If you read the article:

"Over the years, Chomsky's broad criticisms of the U.S. government (a "terrorist state") made him the only person on both Richard Nixon's Enemies List and the Unabomber's kill list. In the 60s and 70s, he undertook frequent overseas speaking engagements in countries that included Cambodia and Vietnam. He contributed to the leftist political magazine Ramparts, itself a target of CIA surveillance. Detailing the agency's obsession with the magazine's writers, former CIA director Stansfield Turner wrote in his 2006 book Burn Before Reading that "the CIA investigation of the staff of Ramparts was definitely illegal." He added: "It was also just a small part of a much larger [President Lyndon] Johnson-initiated project that went by the codeword CHAOS."

Therefore, it is actually somewhat unsettling that the government does not have a file on Chomsky. The only plausible reason I can think of is if Chomsky himself was on the CIA payroll as a deep-cover agent.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
My-Self
Posts: 92
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 1:38:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 1:21:33 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Therefore, it is actually somewhat unsettling that the government does not have a file on Chomsky. The only plausible reason I can think of is if Chomsky himself was on the CIA payroll as a deep-cover agent.

Seeing as Chomsky spends most of his time arguing against government, especially the foreign policy of the CIA and the Department of "Defense," this conjecture is highly unlikely.
"Genesis could be compatible with anything. Theologians are great at mental gymnastics." ~ phantom
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 10:26:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 1:38:51 AM, My-Self wrote:
At 3/27/2013 1:21:33 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Therefore, it is actually somewhat unsettling that the government does not have a file on Chomsky. The only plausible reason I can think of is if Chomsky himself was on the CIA payroll as a deep-cover agent.

Seeing as Chomsky spends most of his time arguing against government, especially the foreign policy of the CIA and the Department of "Defense," this conjecture is highly unlikely.

Then why doesn't Chomsky have a file with the CIA?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 10:29:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 10:26:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/27/2013 1:38:51 AM, My-Self wrote:
At 3/27/2013 1:21:33 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Therefore, it is actually somewhat unsettling that the government does not have a file on Chomsky. The only plausible reason I can think of is if Chomsky himself was on the CIA payroll as a deep-cover agent.

Seeing as Chomsky spends most of his time arguing against government, especially the foreign policy of the CIA and the Department of "Defense," this conjecture is highly unlikely.

Then why doesn't Chomsky have a file with the CIA?
The article doesn't say Chomsky has no file, it says their FOIA request returned with "we found nothing." Quite a bit doesn't get into that.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 10:57:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 10:29:28 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/27/2013 10:26:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/27/2013 1:38:51 AM, My-Self wrote:
At 3/27/2013 1:21:33 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Therefore, it is actually somewhat unsettling that the government does not have a file on Chomsky. The only plausible reason I can think of is if Chomsky himself was on the CIA payroll as a deep-cover agent.

Seeing as Chomsky spends most of his time arguing against government, especially the foreign policy of the CIA and the Department of "Defense," this conjecture is highly unlikely.

Then why doesn't Chomsky have a file with the CIA?
The article doesn't say Chomsky has no file, it says their FOIA request returned with "we found nothing." Quite a bit doesn't get into that.

So, an FOIA request finds nothing. What is the significance of this to you then? Are you saying that FOIA requests do not adequately convey information on an issue?

I can understand if many things are classified, but such things can be subject to redaction. There would still be documents that consisted of unclassified generalizations that would fit into an FOIA request, so I would think.

I don't understand the bolded.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 10:58:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 10:29:28 AM, Wnope wrote:
The article doesn't say Chomsky has no file, it says their FOIA request returned with "we found nothing." Quite a bit doesn't get into that.

That

Though he may not have a file because he and his positions are so well known and most anything about him they could find out with a google search.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 11:08:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 10:58:37 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/27/2013 10:29:28 AM, Wnope wrote:
The article doesn't say Chomsky has no file, it says their FOIA request returned with "we found nothing." Quite a bit doesn't get into that.

That

Though he may not have a file because he and his positions are so well known and most anything about him they could find out with a google search.

Chomsky has called the US government a "terrorist state". This kind of puts him out there. If the CIA were ostensibly there to collect intelligence on suspected risks to the government, then one would imagine that someone attempting to find a just reason to overthrow the government (i.e., calling it a terrorist state) would require further investigation. Such investigation predicates opening a file on the individual.

Chomsky has no file. There are no details available to the CIA on this "threat". There are no details available that would suggest the CIA ever even considered him a threat, even though guys like Nixon easily considered him one.

I agree that the CIA is probably lying on this...that is inherent in my option #3 - that Chomsky is nothing more than a CIA front man disguised in sheep's clothing. What other possible reason would the CIA have to lie about this?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 11:14:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 10:57:30 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/27/2013 10:29:28 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/27/2013 10:26:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/27/2013 1:38:51 AM, My-Self wrote:
At 3/27/2013 1:21:33 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Therefore, it is actually somewhat unsettling that the government does not have a file on Chomsky. The only plausible reason I can think of is if Chomsky himself was on the CIA payroll as a deep-cover agent.

Seeing as Chomsky spends most of his time arguing against government, especially the foreign policy of the CIA and the Department of "Defense," this conjecture is highly unlikely.

Then why doesn't Chomsky have a file with the CIA?
The article doesn't say Chomsky has no file, it says their FOIA request returned with "we found nothing." Quite a bit doesn't get into that.

So, an FOIA request finds nothing. What is the significance of this to you then? Are you saying that FOIA requests do not adequately convey information on an issue?

I can understand if many things are classified, but such things can be subject to redaction. There would still be documents that consisted of unclassified generalizations that would fit into an FOIA request, so I would think.

I don't understand the bolded.

Well, say you're right. The FOIA request excluded every document related to Chomsky's employment. Either way the FOIA fails.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 11:26:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 11:08:39 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
that Chomsky is nothing more than a CIA front man disguised in sheep's clothing. What other possible reason would the CIA have to lie about this?

I think that's the least likely. I'm sure anymore the CIA just lies for the hell of it. Shoot they might just be monitoring this forum and laughing about us idiots trying to figure it out.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 12:36:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 11:14:55 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/27/2013 10:57:30 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/27/2013 10:29:28 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/27/2013 10:26:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/27/2013 1:38:51 AM, My-Self wrote:
At 3/27/2013 1:21:33 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Therefore, it is actually somewhat unsettling that the government does not have a file on Chomsky. The only plausible reason I can think of is if Chomsky himself was on the CIA payroll as a deep-cover agent.

Seeing as Chomsky spends most of his time arguing against government, especially the foreign policy of the CIA and the Department of "Defense," this conjecture is highly unlikely.

Then why doesn't Chomsky have a file with the CIA?
The article doesn't say Chomsky has no file, it says their FOIA request returned with "we found nothing." Quite a bit doesn't get into that.

So, an FOIA request finds nothing. What is the significance of this to you then? Are you saying that FOIA requests do not adequately convey information on an issue?

I can understand if many things are classified, but such things can be subject to redaction. There would still be documents that consisted of unclassified generalizations that would fit into an FOIA request, so I would think.

I don't understand the bolded.

Well, say you're right. The FOIA request excluded every document related to Chomsky's employment. Either way the FOIA fails.

My point was that even if a supposed file on Chomsky was almost entirely outside the scope of public purview, there would still be a file, with some minimal amount of disclosure.

That there is no file at all is unsettling, especially given Chomsky's celebrity and outspoken anti-government positions.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 12:38:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 11:26:04 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:08:39 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
that Chomsky is nothing more than a CIA front man disguised in sheep's clothing. What other possible reason would the CIA have to lie about this?

I think that's the least likely. I'm sure anymore the CIA just lies for the hell of it. Shoot they might just be monitoring this forum and laughing about us idiots trying to figure it out.

So, you're saying that the CIA is wholly irresponsible? That would fit under my #1, that the CIA is grossly incompetent.

I tend to think better of (most) people, so I would be highly doubtful that ALL of the CIA was incompetent to such an extent as to wholly ignore Chomsky. Someone somewhere would have opened a file on Chomsky, unless Chomsky was actually working for the CIA.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 12:46:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 12:38:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:26:04 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:08:39 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
that Chomsky is nothing more than a CIA front man disguised in sheep's clothing. What other possible reason would the CIA have to lie about this?

I think that's the least likely. I'm sure anymore the CIA just lies for the hell of it. Shoot they might just be monitoring this forum and laughing about us idiots trying to figure it out.

So, you're saying that the CIA is wholly irresponsible? That would fit under my #1, that the CIA is grossly incompetent.

I tend to think better of (most) people, so I would be highly doubtful that ALL of the CIA was incompetent to such an extent as to wholly ignore Chomsky. Someone somewhere would have opened a file on Chomsky, unless Chomsky was actually working for the CIA.

I said they have a file and aren't going to let you know about it.
But let's say you're absolutely right, he's either a CIA undercover agent, or the CIA is grossly incompetent, you've uncovered a major, major story here. Break it to all the major networks.

That what you want to hear? It's a non-story. We don't have enough info to explain it, but it doesn't have to fit into one of your groundbreaking narratives.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 1:06:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 12:46:12 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/27/2013 12:38:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:26:04 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:08:39 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
that Chomsky is nothing more than a CIA front man disguised in sheep's clothing. What other possible reason would the CIA have to lie about this?

I think that's the least likely. I'm sure anymore the CIA just lies for the hell of it. Shoot they might just be monitoring this forum and laughing about us idiots trying to figure it out.

So, you're saying that the CIA is wholly irresponsible? That would fit under my #1, that the CIA is grossly incompetent.

I tend to think better of (most) people, so I would be highly doubtful that ALL of the CIA was incompetent to such an extent as to wholly ignore Chomsky. Someone somewhere would have opened a file on Chomsky, unless Chomsky was actually working for the CIA.

I said they have a file and aren't going to let you know about it.
But let's say you're absolutely right, he's either a CIA undercover agent, or the CIA is grossly incompetent, you've uncovered a major, major story here. Break it to all the major networks.

That what you want to hear? It's a non-story. We don't have enough info to explain it, but it doesn't have to fit into one of your groundbreaking narratives.

I don't want to hear false praise, if that's the point you're making.

I was looking into Pat Tillman, and noticed that he died shortly after contacting Chomsky. In the thread I made, I make it pretty clear that I think Tillman was assassinated.

I'm not making any solid, substantiated conclusions about Chomsky, if that is what you think I am doing. I am making conclusions based upon one article and some research on a tertiary topic. Obviously making this truly "newsworthy" would take a hellova lot more research. Regardless, preliminary conclusions such as the one I made in the OP would point someone in the right direction, if those conclusions had any validity.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 1:09:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 12:46:12 PM, lewis20 wrote:

I said they have a file and aren't going to let you know about it.

Like I said to wnope, if they had a file, they could have redacted 99% of what's in it, and just released a tiny, totally insignificant sliver of what is actually there. That would have been much more convincing than to say that the CIA has essentially wholly ignored Chomsky for the duration of his and the CIA's existences.

By saying that the CIA does not have a file on someone like Chomsky, they are essentially admitting to a gigantic cover-up.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 2:31:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 10:29:28 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/27/2013 10:26:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/27/2013 1:38:51 AM, My-Self wrote:
At 3/27/2013 1:21:33 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Therefore, it is actually somewhat unsettling that the government does not have a file on Chomsky. The only plausible reason I can think of is if Chomsky himself was on the CIA payroll as a deep-cover agent.

Seeing as Chomsky spends most of his time arguing against government, especially the foreign policy of the CIA and the Department of "Defense," this conjecture is highly unlikely.

Then why doesn't Chomsky have a file with the CIA?
The article doesn't say Chomsky has no file, it says their FOIA request returned with "we found nothing." Quite a bit doesn't get into that.

Also, just to clarify from the article:

Kel McClanahan, a seasoned national security lawyer who submitted the FOIA request on behalf of Maxwell, was surprised by the CIA's final findings. It was "not a Glomar response, not 'we can't tell you if we have records,' [it was] an actual 'no records' response," he told me. In fact, the CIA's first denial about a Chomsky file came back in September 2011. McClanahan then appealed the outcome and received another denial letter this month.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 4:39:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 2:31:26 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/27/2013 10:29:28 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/27/2013 10:26:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/27/2013 1:38:51 AM, My-Self wrote:
At 3/27/2013 1:21:33 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Therefore, it is actually somewhat unsettling that the government does not have a file on Chomsky. The only plausible reason I can think of is if Chomsky himself was on the CIA payroll as a deep-cover agent.

Seeing as Chomsky spends most of his time arguing against government, especially the foreign policy of the CIA and the Department of "Defense," this conjecture is highly unlikely.

Then why doesn't Chomsky have a file with the CIA?
The article doesn't say Chomsky has no file, it says their FOIA request returned with "we found nothing." Quite a bit doesn't get into that.

Also, just to clarify from the article:

Kel McClanahan, a seasoned national security lawyer who submitted the FOIA request on behalf of Maxwell, was surprised by the CIA's final findings. It was "not a Glomar response, not 'we can't tell you if we have records,' [it was] an actual 'no records' response," he told me. In fact, the CIA's first denial about a Chomsky file came back in September 2011. McClanahan then appealed the outcome and received another denial letter this month.

If Chomsky was on the CIA payroll, wouldn't his info almost necessarily be under Glomar? It seems like a no-brainer. Who would be shocked to hear a Glomar for Noam Chomsky?

If Chomsky is CIA, then I'd say incompetence is to blame once again. It was a red flag that could have been hidden by a simple administrative change.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 4:42:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 4:39:40 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/27/2013 2:31:26 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/27/2013 10:29:28 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/27/2013 10:26:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/27/2013 1:38:51 AM, My-Self wrote:
At 3/27/2013 1:21:33 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Therefore, it is actually somewhat unsettling that the government does not have a file on Chomsky. The only plausible reason I can think of is if Chomsky himself was on the CIA payroll as a deep-cover agent.

Seeing as Chomsky spends most of his time arguing against government, especially the foreign policy of the CIA and the Department of "Defense," this conjecture is highly unlikely.

Then why doesn't Chomsky have a file with the CIA?
The article doesn't say Chomsky has no file, it says their FOIA request returned with "we found nothing." Quite a bit doesn't get into that.

Also, just to clarify from the article:

Kel McClanahan, a seasoned national security lawyer who submitted the FOIA request on behalf of Maxwell, was surprised by the CIA's final findings. It was "not a Glomar response, not 'we can't tell you if we have records,' [it was] an actual 'no records' response," he told me. In fact, the CIA's first denial about a Chomsky file came back in September 2011. McClanahan then appealed the outcome and received another denial letter this month.

If Chomsky was on the CIA payroll, wouldn't his info almost necessarily be under Glomar? It seems like a no-brainer. Who would be shocked to hear a Glomar for Noam Chomsky?

EXACTLY. His info was NOT under Glomar. There was simply NO INFO. THIS is what makes it suspicious.

If Chomsky is CIA, then I'd say incompetence is to blame once again. It was a red flag that could have been hidden by a simple administrative change.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 4:48:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Who cares about Chomsky? He isn't a threat, he's just the usual libertarian nutfvck spouting endless garbage who happened to become extremely well-known and popular. I don't take him any more seriously than I do Alex Jones. I once read 'Hegemony or Survival' and I honestly expected it to be a little sophisticated, but it's simply idiotic rambling about how the imperialism of the US threatens the world and is bad, with appeals to emotion sprinkled in. Nothing more than the same shrill hyperbole and demagoguery we see in newspapers.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 4:52:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 4:48:16 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Who cares about Chomsky? He isn't a threat, he's just the usual libertarian nutfvck spouting endless garbage who happened to become extremely well-known and popular. I don't take him any more seriously than I do Alex Jones. I once read 'Hegemony or Survival' and I honestly expected it to be a little sophisticated, but it's simply idiotic rambling about how the imperialism of the US threatens the world and is bad, with appeals to emotion sprinkled in. Nothing more than the same shrill hyperbole and demagoguery we see in newspapers.

I know far less about Chomsky's ideology than you do. What got me interested in this is my thread on Pat Tillman. Tillman had scheduled an interview with Chomsky shortly before he was killed. Given that Chomsky is ostensibly anti-government, and IF Chomsky is actually an undercover CIA agent, that would potentially mean that Chomsky was involved in Tillman's assassination.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 4:55:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 4:52:53 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/27/2013 4:48:16 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Who cares about Chomsky? He isn't a threat, he's just the usual libertarian nutfvck spouting endless garbage who happened to become extremely well-known and popular. I don't take him any more seriously than I do Alex Jones. I once read 'Hegemony or Survival' and I honestly expected it to be a little sophisticated, but it's simply idiotic rambling about how the imperialism of the US threatens the world and is bad, with appeals to emotion sprinkled in. Nothing more than the same shrill hyperbole and demagoguery we see in newspapers.

I know far less about Chomsky's ideology than you do. What got me interested in this is my thread on Pat Tillman. Tillman had scheduled an interview with Chomsky shortly before he was killed. Given that Chomsky is ostensibly anti-government, and IF Chomsky is actually an undercover CIA agent, that would potentially mean that Chomsky was involved in Tillman's assassination.

I don't know who Pat Tillman is.

Chomsky is a left-libertarian. He supports anarcho-syndicalism and thinks the US and Israel are rogue terrorist states.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 4:56:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 4:48:16 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Who cares about Chomsky? He isn't a threat, he's just the usual libertarian nutfvck spouting endless garbage who happened to become extremely well-known and popular. I don't take him any more seriously than I do Alex Jones. I once read 'Hegemony or Survival' and I honestly expected it to be a little sophisticated, but it's simply idiotic rambling about how the imperialism of the US threatens the world and is bad, with appeals to emotion sprinkled in. Nothing more than the same shrill hyperbole and demagoguery we see in newspapers.

What have you read/seen of Chomsky that would give you that opinion? I'm not saying that I agree or disagree, only that I'm curious about your perspective.
Tsar of DDO
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 5:06:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 4:55:54 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 3/27/2013 4:52:53 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/27/2013 4:48:16 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Who cares about Chomsky? He isn't a threat, he's just the usual libertarian nutfvck spouting endless garbage who happened to become extremely well-known and popular. I don't take him any more seriously than I do Alex Jones. I once read 'Hegemony or Survival' and I honestly expected it to be a little sophisticated, but it's simply idiotic rambling about how the imperialism of the US threatens the world and is bad, with appeals to emotion sprinkled in. Nothing more than the same shrill hyperbole and demagoguery we see in newspapers.

I know far less about Chomsky's ideology than you do. What got me interested in this is my thread on Pat Tillman. Tillman had scheduled an interview with Chomsky shortly before he was killed. Given that Chomsky is ostensibly anti-government, and IF Chomsky is actually an undercover CIA agent, that would potentially mean that Chomsky was involved in Tillman's assassination.

I don't know who Pat Tillman is.

http://www.debate.org...

Chomsky is a left-libertarian. He supports anarcho-syndicalism and thinks the US and Israel are rogue terrorist states.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 5:12:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Chomsky's done great historical work when it comes to documenting things America et. al. would prefer not to be documented. However, his rhetoric and viewpoint was just shy of bat sh!t crazy. His ideal of society basically was embodied in a small spanish anarchist society that survive a few years.

But he's also well known for major advancements in the field of linguistics which basically created an entire "school" of linguists (one of my professors was a second-generation anti-Chomsky linguist) based around the idea that all humans have some biologically innate "grammar" which allows children to learn and form languages.