How should society be organised, if at all?
"Anti-American Hate"? So anyone questioning the propaganda disseminated by the US is "Anti-American"? To me, this enitre article is nothing but emotional slanging on part of Horowitz, and the usual propaganda spewed by mass media to pigeon-hole dissenters into 'terrorists'.Melchior wrote:http://www.salon.com/2001/09/26/treason_2/
Please elaborate on this so-called propaganda disseminated by the American government.WanderingLands wrote:So anyone questioning the propaganda disseminated by the US is "Anti-American"?
Been doing so for a while now since on this forum, mentioning for example the ISIS propaganda narrative, which was unfortunately deleted; along with that, COINTELPRO, September 11th, War on Terror. Let's also include a fuller range of U.S. Interventions to cover more of their foreign policy.bobevenson wrote:Please elaborate on this so-called propaganda disseminated by the American government.
Don't hide behind that crap you just posted, spell out the specific "propaganda" you're talking about!WanderingLands wrote:
How come you don't use all the formatting functions then boob? Just the one that lets you SHOUT!bobevenson wrote:He provides it, so he must think it has a function, but I can understand why a dum-dum like you asks such a stupid question.Arising_uk wrote:Why? Is he forcing you to use it?
You are a complete loon, the phpbb software is a generic package and I know Rick has no interest in the implementation or functions and I doubt Bora wastes any time on what fonts or formats are provided and just implements the default package.
What 'propaganda'? The author accuses Chomsky of being intellectually bankrupt, dishonest, etc. I agree with the author. I am appalled that Philosophy Now has honored him.WanderingLands wrote:Melchior wrote:http://www.salon.com/2001/09/26/treason_2/
The propaganda that Horowitz repeats in that article; that anyone that questions the US government's foreign policy is basically considered to be 'anti-American', or 'in support of terrorism'.Melchior wrote: What 'propaganda'? The author accuses Chomsky of being intellectually bankrupt, dishonest, etc. I agree with the author. I am appalled that Philosophy Now has honored him.
I think that Horowitz' article is more "intellectually bankrupt, and dishonest". His article reeks of multiple examples of faulty black and white thinking: "rallies against America’s right to defend herself", "wherever young people manifest an otherwise incomprehensible rage against their country", "how it is possible for American youth to even consider lending comfort and aid to the Osama bin Ladens and the Saddam Husseins (and the Communists before them)". It contains a ton of hyperbole, such as to say that the atrocities committed by the US were "intended to present [it] as the devil incarnate", and as "a worthy target of attack for the guerilla forces of “social justice” all over the world".
I'm not all that big into Chomsky, as I've never really read much of his work, and that I'm not really aligned so much with the Left; but this article is just a terrible diatribe.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests