Um, who are you talking to, elucidator? Where did I mention Nazi Germany or Poland? I’m reading your “response” to my post, and I’m thinking that your Babelfish program is seriously malfunctioning.
But to eliminate the “rhetorical nonsense,” I’ll make this easy:
chumpsky has no evidence one way or another whether the US government is lying or not.
He insists that the US government is.
It is possible to come to an informed decision about credibility in the absence of evidence.
What is necessary to come to that decision in the absence of evidence is an investigation of motive…
What is the motive for the US government to create yet another international crisis out of whole cloth, against an enemy that it cannot militarily attack, at precisely the moment when its plate is completely full with other international crises?
I can’t think of one. Can you?
Is that better, elucidator?
OK, sorry. But use of slanderous statements can be an example of an unthought-out plan, too - aka bungling. Statements constitute diplomacy in that context.
And he also hasn’t answered what his location is. He could be stuck in some backwater where he’s the only one who ever heard of lefty books and now he’s blazing forth with all the fury of adolescence with Da Truth.
I think that particular question has already been asked, in numerous threads. To my knowledge, Chumpsky has never answered it directly.
While we’re waiting for the poster in question to weigh in, I’ll fill in with an opinion: judging from the highly subjective, propagandistic tone of his own posts, and his angry rejection of news from any so-called “corporate” media outlet, Chumpsky does not believe that there IS such a thing as an unbiased news source. Apparently for him, all so-called ‘objective’ reporting is tainted by a bias toward one side or the other of the class struggle, and thus all so-called “news” is really propaganda. There is only “good” propaganda and “bad” propaganda, and he prefers to support what he sees as the “good”. I’ll leave it to the poster in question to confirm or amend this opinion.
To go a bit further, Chumpsky, for reasons known only to himself, has apparently decided to reject any information that does not confirm his personal thesis that capitalism is responsible for majority of the world’s ills. As he has never shown any inclination to dicuss who he is, where he comes from and why he prefers to lecture, rather than engage in dialogue, the members of this board, I cannot speculate further as to why he has closed his mind in this way.
Only You and I have told our locations, the rest are chickens that has leared the alphabet, but how about Your future destination?
Or mine?
Even if we all are different, think different, I think we can learn something from each other. What do You think?
Anyhow, I learn more from Chumsky that from those guys that can only produce a sentence or two.
Even if I learn something opposite to what someone means, I learn.
And in Chumskys case, well, he has most often a point. Just go to his earlier posts and read the whole threads and You find out that it is more than 50%.
Tell me if You find another poster like that.
Mostly I do not agree, but he has a point.
P.S. I just wait for his BIG Iraq thread. I have a lot to say there.
Still waiting…
After writing this I read the wise words of El_Kabong
Exactly! There is non. You have to think by Yourself!!!
Of course there is. An unbiased source is one with which you agree.
Less flippantly, there are more objective ways to determine lack of bias. If differing views (not “the opposite view”, since there is rarely only one) consistently get full airings and analyses, with acknowledgments of their facts and reasoning when sound, and always with an assumption that disagreeing views are held in good faith, then the source is less biased than others.
This does not help our neo-Bolshevist friend show his any of his pony’s other tricks, though.
If there is no source Chumpsky considers reasonably unbiased then of course the entire debate is moot. No evidence can be provided which is acceptable. If so this thread is a dead end and should be closed post haste.
I’ll wait for Chumpsky to answer for himself on this point Henry before considering this a complete waste of time.
Sua, only the first part, regarding “Chumpksy and his ilk” was in response to you directly. Chumpy may or may not be guilty of the cognitive dissonance you assert. But who are these “ilk”?
The rest had more to do with the purported “legality” of the War in Waiting.