Noam the Master Mind has fulfilled his dream of visiting Lebanon. Every youngster has a list of coveted destinations better left for the golden years of retirement, and here it came for Chomsky.
Unfortunately, Chomsky decided that there must be a political payment made to his graceful hosts, and the hosts happened to be the nice folks of Hezbolla.
And here he is, ingratiating his regal self to the group that even the Lebanese themselves despise and fear:
I think Nasrallah has a reasoned argument and persuasive argument that they should be in the hands of Hezbollah (the arms) as a deterrent to potential aggression, and there is plenty of background reasons for that. So until, I think his position reporting it correctly and it seems to me reasonable position, is that until there is a general political settlement in the region, the threat of aggression and violence is reduced or eliminated there has to be a deterrent, and the Lebanese army can’t be a deterrent.
So says the mastermind. “Potential aggression” – from where? One guess (and it is not Switzerland). But the Lebanese know better.
Another third observer said “Chomsky showed poor judgment in jumping to this quick conclusion about the Hezbollah arms. Chomsky he added “does not know that the Hezbollah arms scare the Lebanese people more than the Israelis.”
Chomsky obviously doesn’Â’t know that Hezbollah and its allies fought the Cedar Revolution by aligning themselves with the Syrian regime.
The above comes from a source that even a prejudiced observer will not be able to blame in sympathy to Zionists. And that source has more to say:
“Chomsky needs to live here for a while to understand what happened during the past 30 years and why most Lebanese are against the Hezbollah arms.”
One of Chomsky’s stated objectives in visiting Lebanon is to learn about the country. Many political observers feel that if all Chomsky learnt was for Hezbollah to keep its arms, then he didn’Â’t learn much during his short trip.
No worries, folks. The Master Mind does not “learn” things, he deduces them. For many years Noam disregards facts that are either inconvenient or too bothersome for his brain, preferring instead to pelt the defenseles humanity by his decrees. The list of what Chomsky does not know (but has a fully informed opinion about) is endless, and it has never interfered with his ability to put forth the most ridiculous postulates.
It seems that in his professional life the things are not much better (although I have to confess that I know nothing about the subject). See here.
They say that denial is not a river. Shall Noam take heed?
Thank you for the link to the description of Chomsky. I had previously thought that Chomsky was a great linguist who had decided that since he was an expert in one subject, he knew everything about anything else. I see now that his arrogence applies to his alleged field of expertise as well.
There are those who define hell as watching the videotape of your life without being able to lie to yourself about it. If that is so, then Chomsky has created his own punishment. Unfortunately, we who are left behind have to deal with the mess that he created.
Sabba Hillel