Noam Chomsky: US Is a Rogue State and Suleimani's Assassination Confirms It

[BeckyDem]

By
C.J. Polychroniou,
Truthout

Published January 7, 2020

Trump’s decision to assassinate one of Iran’s most prominent and highly respected military leaders, Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, has added yet another name to the list of people killed by the U.S. — which many rightly see as the world’s biggest rogue state.

The assassination has escalated hostilities between Tehran and Washington and created an even more explosive situation in the politically volatile Middle East. As was to be expected, Iran has vowed to retaliate on its own terms for the killing of its general, while also announcing that it will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal. Iraq’s parliament, in turn, has voted to expel all U.S. troops, but Trump has responded with threats of sanctions if the U.S. is forced to remove its troops from the country.

As world-renowned public intellectual Noam Chomsky points out in this exclusive interview for Truthout, the primary aim of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has been to control the region’s energy resources. Here Chomsky — a university professor emeritus at MIT and laureate professor of linguistics at the University of Arizona who has published more than 120 books on linguistics, global affairs, U.S. foreign policy, media studies, politics and philosophy — offers his analysis of Trump’s reckless act and its possible effects.

C.J. Polychroniou: Noam, the U.S. assassination of Iran’s Quds Force commander Qassim Suleimani has reaffirmed Washington’s long-held obsession with Tehran and its clerical regime, which goes all the way back to the late 1970s. What is the conflict between U.S. and Iran all about, and does the assassination of Suleimani constitute an act of war?

Noam Chomsky: Act of war? Perhaps we can settle on reckless international terrorism. It seems that Trump’s decision, on a whim, appalled high Pentagon officials who briefed him on options, on pragmatic grounds. If we wish to look beyond, we might ask how we would react in comparable circumstances.Suppose that Iran were to murder the second-highest U.S. official, its top general, in the Mexico City international airport, along with the commander of a large part of the U.S.-supported army of an allied nation. Would that be an act of war? Others can decide. It is enough for us to recognize that the analogy is fair enough, and that the pretexts put forth by Washington collapse so quickly on examination that it would be embarrassing to run through them.

https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-us-is-a-rogue-state-and-suleimanis-assassination-confirms-it/

[AllaN01Bear]

1. the us is a rouge state and always been.

[BeckyDem]

2. We can change that and we must. Just look at climate change, we must do better.

The future of the planet depends on it.

[nycbos]

3. This is the same person who denies the Cambodian genocide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chomsky_and_Herman



Not very credible.

[BeckyDem]

4. Nonsense. Please inform yourself and I would appreciate you not derailing

this thread.

As Chomsky is prevented from presenting his views, and refuses on principle to sue for defamation, it is easy to fabricate horrible charges against him, which have lingered for decades, despite easy refutation. As long ago as 1985, Christopher Hitchens went through the dull task of exposing the tedious and scurrilous lies that one finds circulating about Chomsky. The favourites of Chomsky's critics - who rarely show any sign of having read any of Chomsky's work - are that he ignored, downplayed or celebrated the atrocities of Pol Pot. The other is that he supported Robert Faurisson's Holocaust denial (the truth is simply that he supported the freedom of speech of a Holocaust denier).

The basic facts of the Cambodia issue are these: In June 1977, Chomsky and Edward Herman published a study in the Nation, in which they reviewed how scholarship and the mainstream media treated different reports of atrocities in Cambodia. One of the books they reviewed was in French, by Francois Ponchaud. They wrote that his "book is serious and worth reading, as distinct from much of the commentary it has elicited. He gives a grisly account of what refugees have reported to him about the barbarity of their treatment at the hands of the Khmer Rouge". However, they did find it was flawed in many ways. They go on to critique a review of this book by Jean Lacouture, which Lacouture agreed was full of errors. Lacouture response in the New York Review of Books included considerable praise of Chomsky:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-01/brull---the-boring-truth-about-chomsky/2779086

[Newest Reality]

5. Thank you!

I think that Chomsky deserves credit and respect for the insights and knowledge he brings to many issues and he has been a valuable resource for me for decades.

In an intellectual sense, there is no way to avoid any bias on a topic, but Chomsky's views are very informed to such a degree that he provides credible information to consider. He obviously not only keeps abreast of issues, but does his research which is a service to those of us who won't or can't spend the time to investigate the complex political, (and other) issues of our times.

I find it specious and questionable when people toss out a one line reaction to him that appears to be a means to totally discredit him based on one factor, true or not. In fact, consider the depth and breadth of his knowledge and the alacrity of his thought, only a more detailed refutation of his work has any meaning or weight for me. The rest is unworthy of response and reflects bias and possibly ignorance.

My thanks for your response and I hope I didn't derail by expressing my support.

[BeckyDem]

6. +1

No problem!