Chomsky is by training a linguist. When I objected to a particularly egregious and damaging usage of words - the same phrase meant the opposite thing in two cultures, but the same op-ed was intended for both - he replied that it was "all part of The Game." "The Game" - stretching words to their limits so their individual use may be technically correct but their application in context adds up to a falsehood - is what he does for kicks.
He snows people because not everyone grasps (as Chomsky does) that different words can describe the same thing but only apply in particular contexts. By using the word inappropriately he compels the unwary reader to change his or her characterization of an act. For example, he refers to the 1944 Normandy landings as "the U.S. invasion of France". This is technically true, but contextually and emotionally false: France had already been invaded by the Nazis and was under Nazi occupation; furthermore, the French did not consider it a hostile invasion ("hostile" is usually implied when the word "invasion" is employed, but that's a cultural not linguistic truth, get it?) but instead as liberation.
But if you listen to Chomsky and you didn't truly understand events or context you might be convinced that the U.S. was an aggressor in WWII and the Nazis (and French) mere victims. He's recognized as a dishonest academic; that's why he couldn't get a lecture hall when he visited my campus and had to lecture in the coffee shop instead.
US are considered to be a strong and most important help by most French for the Liberation
But in the time of Liberation there were many opinions: let's summarizz in two opposite camps:
- one center and right wing consider US as important to deal with but in the same time as Charles de Gaulle said we need our independance
especially that weeks after US were still in France fter Liberation
- the socialists and communists didn't want US troops to stay and many of them were pro soviet (in that time before they know about the real face of USSR): they strongly went down the streets to protest US troops be on the French territory
Even right wing , as Charles de Gaulle, wanted such independance that he was not a big fan of NATO but believed in a strong Europe and a strong France in his parti (two different opinions which divided the parti)
Of course Chomsky having a strong personal and partisan position. he strongly exagerates.
We know where he stands
Anon > not letting him speak is the exercice of a dictatorship not a democracy
In the same time he understood well about Iran uprising
That most Americans and citizens of the world didn't care about what happened in our country: for exemple we know USA are playing double game in Iran US relations: many companies of US and Europe are doing strong business in Iran when they boycott in a way that only the poor people are suffering from it in my country
And today they support the terrorist group of radjavi when in your own land you have so many educated and normal (not terrorist and bloody minded people) people that you can listen to understand a little bit about Iran
Anyway even in Europe they criticize the cowboy action against OBL aven if they like to know he id dead now. The fact is that justice action is much stronger value now here but maybe it could be understood by the fact you needed a revenge.
You know i hate Radjavi sect for the bombings the terror and what followed their actions and collaboration with Saddam ... but i would never imagine that there is no need of justice
And by justice i didn't mean the fake justice of judgment of Rigi : as an Iranian offical was comparing but the truth is that it was fake court.
Our justice is one of the worst in the world. They can take anyone torture rape in jails witout any ability for the victims to complain. Not speaking of so many judgments where they dodn't allow even the advocate to see the "criminal"
The world needed maybe a better picture of what happened to OBL
but after time people will onl remember this date as OBL was dead and a good new for the world ...
