clueless

from iran's mehr news agency:

Chomsky: Palestinians punished for not obeying Israel-U.S. orders

TEHRAN, Jan. 23 (MNA) - Noam Chomsky, a widely known intellectual and political activist, says an immediate punishment of Palestinians started “for the crime of not following orders” by Israel and U.S.

In an interview with the Mehr News Agency, Chomsky said, “Savage punishment of Palestinians by the U.S.-Israeli alliance” should come to an end.
Following is the text of the interview:

The major crisis in Gaza started immediately after Hamas won a free and fair election (ed: uh huh - on what planet?). The West, which despises democracy unless it comes out "the right way", immediately turned to punishment of the people for the crime of not following orders (ed: perhaps it was in response to rockets fired against civilian targets..?), Israel and the U.S. in the lead, Europe following timidly along as usual. The crisis has continued to escalate, and of course it is tied to U.S.-Israeli takever of whatever is of value in the West Bank (ed: wait, is he actually claiming that the israel fought back in an effort to acquire assets in the west bank?), often with considerable violence (ed: initiated and sustained by the palestianians; a.k.a. acts of war, a.k.a. casus belli).

The Annapolis conference was a joke in poor taste. It had almost nothing to do with Israel-Palestine. It was an effort by Bush and Rice to line up the "moderate" Arab states (ed: you mean those that aren't actively threatening nuclear holocaust?)-- that is, the extreme fundamentalist tyrannies that are expected to follow orders (ed: spoken in.. iran?)-- in an anti-Iran alliance. That's why it was held in Annapolis.

There should be efforts by the Islamic states, and everyone else, to put an end to the savage punishment of Palestinians by the U.S.-Israeli alliance (ed: presumably he's referring to iran's pledge to nuke israel).

spoken in iran no less.

(the factual vacuum there is high quality: don't walk too close or you'll get sucked into the same mode of reasoning that defines the conspiracy theorist)

two possibilities:
1. his words have been misconstrued by mehr to the point that what's written doesn't match his opinion (mehr clearly did a reduction job; the question is how much). this however seems unlikely, given that chomsky has an online mouthpiece and community to rebut an attempt by iran to put words in his mouth. or..
2. he means what's said above, even if he would consider it a gross simplification.

two consequences:
1. chomsky has placed himself in a position where he is used as a propaganda piece for a terrorist regime publicly committed to genocide and mass murder. or..
2. he has deliberately assisted said terrorist regime toward the goal of self-justification and internal consolidation.

---

the 20th century's version of irreligious 'morality' manifests itself as totalitarianism.

---

slightly related aside: the real idiocy with folks like chomsky is that they identify a narrative consistent with fact and then define the narrative as fact. denial of the narrative is then couched as denial of fact; if this inconsistency is noted, denial of the narrative is then couched as stemming from subversion by some hidden external (read: unverifiable) force (big business for the marxist, western imperialism for the chomskyite, &c), rather than careful observation of fact.

and so the attempt to fight imagined totalitarianism becomes the active support of existing totalitarianism.