@@markboros2217 and a newspaper editor and photographer from La Cronica who were pulled outside from a coffee shop in San Salvador and hack to pieces with machetes by security forces. (source: "The Essential Chomsky" page 275)
When I try to speak with Trump supporters online, it quickly descends into me being called a 'cuckold libtard'. They don't realise that the most offensive part of that is to imply i'm liberal when I'm a libertarian communist. So I'll say I think it's questionable Trump will enact protectionist tax policy, since he himself outsourced jobs in his business to 12 different countries and called it a smart business move. That even if he created jobs through this protectionism, he wants to overturn workplace health and safety regulations, so even if you get a job, you're more likely to slip on something that would otherwise be cleared up by those useless safety precautions inhibiting the 'free market'. The fall fractures your skull and then you're left with overwhelming debt under Trump's reversal of even the modest improvements of Obamacare. Apparently saying this makes me 'beta'. So I tell them to worship their wiggy orange overlord and there we both are, a digital time-capsule of scribblings for a future intelligent rat historian, in her research on how the human race pursued a path towards nuclear holocaust, 'reconstructing the peculiar and temporarily tragic circumstances that gave ratkind its big break' ;)
NoExitLoveNow That is true; Chomsky has been indispensable in untangling the web of lies that surrounds us all for more than half a century, and his analysis is an incredible gift to every person who gives a shit about peace and justice.
Greg Vinson He has been untangling the web of lies that surrounds us for so long and he continues to do it to this day. It will be such an immense tragedy when he dies.
+Jack Stratif History is made by important roles people had in their lives. Chomsky will continue to be alive as long as there is such thing as human history.
This is precisely why Chomsky was all but banned from all major cable networks - he's exceedingly more intelligent than his interviewer and his panel opponent. The right (wrongfully) accuse him of being too far left, but this could not be more wrong. He simply questions institutional thinking - on both sides of the ledger.
I know he would detest the title but I can't help saying that Noam Chomsky is a hero, an intellectual hero who fought for the truth in the face of vast repression. I love the man with all my heart!
***** scott is right. the history is proving that noam chomsky's decision is right, and following Silba, which is to just start a war because of Nicaragua is a stupid thing to do. john silba is just a dog of the government to mislead the stupid majority into the taste of freedom and democracy. do you also see how john silba (i mean that dick) was keep distracting noam chomsky because of his amour-prope to win chomsky in the program? study before you talk about this, philip, unles you want to be caught in the illusion made by the politicians.
Philip Mathews Yeah Silber was wrong on every account from his outrageous comparisons of Nicaragua to Nazi Germany, his denial that high ranking members of the contras were ex-somocistas, and his blatant fabrication that Arturo Cruz was not a figure head of the CIA. The fact he kept cutting Chomsky off and insulting him was indication that he was losing the argument.
To all the Chomskysites….the man was wrong in so many historical instances that even listening to his political views makes you the kind of person that expects a different outcome by adhering to the same method. Chomsky is an intellectual of specialised knowledge but he thinks he possesses general knowledge which is impossible to have. Even the smartest persons possess less than 1% of general human knowledge. He is the kind of guy that during interviews in the late 60s supported that communism has democratised - liberated societies, he denied the killing fields massacres in Cambodia, he cheered for Chavez and Castro and so on. He deservedly thus, was included as a bad paradigm,in books that explore the reasons about "intellectuals" that are more often wrong than right (Paul Hollander's , Sowell's, etc). Sowell's argument was that of generalised vs specialised knowledge and the 1% paradigm above is drawn from his book "Intellectuals and Society" (which is a MUST read). P.S. Once again Chomsky "was right" www.heritage.org/americas/report/the-sandinista-war-human-rights
LIAM LIAMESQUE And people wonder why Chomsky gets cranky with pitiable flyspecks like Sam Harris these days... Noam's had decades of unfortunate encounters with these sorts of State apologists who profess civility and only want to dominate without evidence or intellectual honesty.
***** I can get Chomsky being impatient with Harris's naivety, which I'll call it in order to give him the benefit of doubt. In listening to his recent 2.5-hour discussion with Dan Carlin (who was _very_ patient and was able to pin Harris down without either of them flying off the handle), he seems to sincerely believe that nation-states - at least liberal Western ones - can act and react with a _moral_ and not purely mercenary axis. Carlin, who has a deep knowledge of military history (as well as Chomsky, who has a lifetime of personal experience) expressed greater cynicism with regards to the morals of state actors, particularly concerning 'interests' of significant economic gravity.
Jon Rowe Chomsky likes that analogy he has recently used it to describe a Palestinian threat to Israel. I actually think he used it again to describe the threat Iran truly plays to America.
@@gFS.1 Chomsky was saying to Silber that to say Nicaragua - with its diminutive size - could be the launch point for an attacks on the US (as silver suggested) is like saying the US could invade Russia from Luxembourg
Silber says to Chomsky that he wanted correct him "while you're still around." (5:17) Silber exudes boiling rage, violence, authoritarianism, and fascism, arguing for increasing an illegal US terrorist war against Nicaragua and continually trying to silence Chomsky's voice throughout the segment. You can almost see Silber wanting to hit him or have some goons drag him out. Does anyone think the "while you're still around" statement was kind of a veiled death threat? Chomsky was only 58 here. Nowhere near a point of dying of old age.
and now he is a graceful 86 and proven correct and still going strong. I only found this cite because I was watching Decline of the Western World on the history channel w/ every great mind of our time including him validating his thought processes x 45 years. lmao it good to be liberal
I did some background reading on Silber, and I wasn't surprised to learn that he left a trail of alienation and revulsion throughout his life. He bullied and shouldered his way to the top of an elite institution, but Chomsky - like a laser - focuses on the documented facts and on the hypocrisy of spokespersons for imperial violence. This is a priceless clip and, as always, I'm astonished at how Chomsky maintains his focus and composure in the face of countless interruptions, nonsequiturs, and personal attacks. What a legend.
That stock scandal was something. Taking 1/5 of the BUs endowments and dumping it into a tanking stock so his buddies could get rich. This guy should have had an army of milkshake anarchists following him around.
13:08 The effective leader Edgar Chamorro, who Silber cites, testified to the ICJ that the contras did commit serious crimes, such as kidnap, rape, and torture. He testified further that "The CIA did not discourage such tactics. To the contrary, the Agency severely criticized me when I admitted to the press that the FDN had regularly kidnapped and executed agrarian reform workers and civilians. We were told that the only way to defeat the Sandinistas was to...kill, kidnap, rob and torture..." In hindsight anyone who was on the fence or leaned toward the Silber position was entirely wrong, and Chomsky had been entirely right.
Actually the current (2021) repressive dictatorship under Sandanista leader Daniel Ortega - arguably the worst in Central America today and when no one is attacking them and the Soviet Union no longer exists - proves that concerns about the Sandanistas' dictatorial bent in the 1980s were well-founded.
@@sheilamacdougal4874 I’d check again - Ortega’s policies have greatly moderated over the years. He’s instituted a lot of pro-business reforms and even strengthened relations with the Vatican by adopting strong pro-life social policies.
@@MrRoboto81 Hilarious. I think it's you who had better check again: soldiers opening fire on peaceful protesters, killing dozens, political opponents arrested, all serious political challengers prevented from standing in upcoming elections, press stifled, etc., every feature of a dictatorship. Read Amnesty's latest report, or for that matter read anything: BBC, Guardian, Times, anything. Yes, you're that ignorant. Next you'll tell us that Pinochet was not a dictator because he "instituted a lot of pro-business reforms."
@Oliver Zinn What's ridiculous is your silly labeling. Ortega was always a repressive tyrant, whether he used "leftist" rhetoric or not, whether he had any social programs or not. You want to live in a fantasy Hansel and Gretel world where "the left" - whatever that means - is good, and conversely, anything bad is on the "right". Unfortunately Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Castro, Guevera, and now Ortega haven't cared much about the fairytale beliefs of sanctimonious little western ignoramuses.
John Silber debates like a bully and a barabarian. Actually his facial expressions, his body language, his agitation and his outbursts of temper and name-calling are classic indications of a debater who is insecure in his position and senses that he is on thin ice.
Yes. I notice that Silber is outraged at what Chomsky says, but Chomsky seems to expect Silber's line of attack, only becoming agitated at the infuriating way Silber keeps interrupting him.
@@stevencoardvenice if an argument is weak or non existant its easy to debunk it. it doesnt need any effort. if you still rely on namecalling and think its appropriated you are just try to hide your lacking of any arguments
Chomsky stays rooted in facts and verifiable information, while his opponent, John Silber, resorts to constant disruptions and ad hominem attacks. Going as far as to call Chomsky a "phony." The moderator needs to do a better job at allowing each person to voice their uninterrupted views, rather than permitting inapproprite name-calling.
Decades later, on the contrary, the repressive dictatorship under Sandanista leader Daniel Ortega - arguably the worst in Central America today and when no one is attacking them and the Soviet Union no longer exists - proves that concerns about the Sandanistas' dictatorial bent in the 1980s were very well-founded.
@@sheilamacdougal4874 so because Ortega is corrupt after four decades in politics, the entire Sandinista movement was? Great logic. Would be shocked if you withheld such judgment for politicians you support…
@@ericpark8784 It doesn't prove that the entire Sandinista movement was corrupt (nor did I say so, nor was I even discussing corruption, but rather dictatorial or anti-democratic tendencies). What Ortega's repressive dictatorial current policy does show is that the Sandinista leadership was likely undemocratic, and like repressive dictators everywhere from Africa to Asia to Latin America to Russia to 1930s Germany, only paid lip service to or used democratic means when it suited them.
@@sheilamacdougal4874 Seeing your comments on Nicaragua, and seeing your comments on the GrayZone only proves not to give no pfp profiles the time of day, the frank of the matter is in the bloody 2018 murderous coup attempt most of the deaths were police and govt supporters (Nicaraguan Red Cross). The FSLN won the most recent election no different than MAS in Bolivia and nothing you say will do anything to change that and thank god. The country will continue to improve despite horrendous sanctions.
@@beepboop1044 Ok Ortega lackey. I'll believe what international human rights groups, respected international observers and analysts say, and you can believe what Ortega's state propaganda and a couple of lying podcaster hacks say. Best wishes.
The only thing more satisfying than Chomsky's style of discourse and flawless intellectual rigour are the litany of microexpressions he barely managed to suppress. An anarchist gentleman.
Chomsky's contribution to our understanding of the world we live in is inestimable. He will be revered, rightly so, for his integrity and scholarship long after he dies, in stark contrast to people like Silber who will be remember only for promoting lies, instrumental in the death and torture of so many innocents.
Agreed ...he took on a superpower and its legions of propagandists almost alone for many years I feel, as many others, so much respect and affection for him He's not playing politics like Sam Harris or Hitchens. The latter two were/are impressed with their own minds, apparently, and saw/see politics as a way to display them Chomsky, correctly, sees politics as intellectually shallow. He says anything we know in politics is trivial and it's easy enough to assemble the facts if you want to. He would rather stick to his arcane and exciting subjects but the lies told in the service of vicious power would not let him close the door to the suffering world. Such a wonderful human
Actually the current (2021) repressive dictatorship under Sandanista leader Daniel Ortega - arguably the worst in Central America today and when no one is attacking them and the Soviet Union no longer exists - proves that concerns about the Sandanistas' dictatorial bent in the 1980s were well-founded.
It's comical that this hypocrite and propaganda spewer Silber accuses Chomsky repeatedly of uttering falsehoods and being a propagandist, even going so far as to reference George Orwell's 1984. Chomsky is the one rebutting propaganda, and Silber's crude and slimy attempted role reversal hopefully didn't fool many people.
A Skeptical Human Sadly the aggressive tactic of yelling, calling an argument lies, and appearing incredulous is an effective means of diminishing credibility to unwitting onlookers. Silber provided very little rational response to anything chomsky was saying, obviously because his ideological perspective is entrenched with megalomania and dogma, which aren't good tools to do battle with a well cited fact onslaught Chomsky is world famous for providing.
What propaganda you fool? The fact that Chomsky still has a right to free speech is because the US government didn't allow the Soviets to take over the world. You and Chomsky have no idea what you are talking about! Look up for Yuri Bezemdov's lectures on UA-cam (Ex-KGB agent who defected) where he called people like Chomsky useful idiots. That's exactly what they were and you can see Chomsky during a late 60s interview with William Buckley Jr. proclaiming that communism brought democratisation - liberation in societies (!!!!). This idiot never apologised when Solzhenitsyn's book shook the world when it showed Westerners what kind of democratisation - liberation communism brought to them.
Actually the current (2021) repressive dictatorship under Sandanista leader Daniel Ortega - arguably the worst in Central America today and when no one is attacking them and the Soviet Union no longer exists - proves that concerns about the Sandanistas' dictatorial bent in the 1980s were well-founded.
+c4p0ne It's amazing these people who have called the left whiny morons making a fuss over nothing, yet a few student unions encouraging their students to click their fingers rather than clapping has driven the reactionaries into an utter frenzy.
BigEvan96 Yup, but funding terror organizations in Syria, the destruction of social democracy, decline in living standards all across the western world etc. all bother me a lot more than shit like that. It's annoying, but I barely care.
+wisildur Hey buddy, intentions are a more reliable model of future behavioral prediction than head counts- which offers absolutely no insight. Sure people can profess benign intentions yet cause much suffering, they can also profess malign intentions with the same effect- in the second case intention confers actual value. Head count metrics tell us absolutely nothing, for example the Allies in WW2 killed far more than the Axis, according to old Noams logic they would be assessed to be evil to a higher degree, we all know this is mistaken. Hitler professed good intention towards Germans but not other parties. Apparently in Noams view the USA is evil as it leads the head count tally. This is perverse reasoning. No attention is payed to context. Would you care to disabuse everyone as to why Noams view of intention is more enlightened? If you truly understand his position then it shouldnt be a problem. homsky was vanquished here- Silber shut him down, he made solid points, its true that at that time and in context of the Cold War the Soviet Union was still a very insidious and pervasive threat to the USA in Latin America, the USA supported brutal oppositions but it was a means to an end to prevent Soviet imperialism, many Latin governments had strong Marxist tendencies and ultimately the proliferation of such regimes would have posed a direct threat to the USA. All in context, Chomsky a naive boy scout morality in which he views complex political situations through a very biased superficial anti-USA lens. Essentially the USA were trying to obviate Communist influence in neighboring countries...you cant blame them, considering Russia is still engaged in this sort of preemptive maneuvering to ensure the integrity of its interests ie Crimea. Chomsky only registers USA transgressions, he should be less biased and view American policy as being largely reactionary during that time period which it was. Chomsky loves to invoke moral equivalences in the Nazi vain...it is amusing how here Silber appealed to the Nazis here a few times to great effect.
+David Gilmour You're making the assumption that we were the 'good guys' in ww2. You're wrong about that. We were the winning side of a war between imperial powers. Both sides wanted world power, one side got it. So yeah, we were more evil than Germany if you want to put it that way. We are the only ones to use nuclear bombs, we killed more people, we tortured more people, we murdered more civilians, and we raped more women. Keep in mind that America has told the entire world what to do, when to do it, and how to do it since WW2. America just did exactly what Germany wanted to do.
The host should've stepped in to allow Chomsky to finish his points. It is completely unfair to call someone a liar(several times) and then never give them a chance to respond.
Exactly. It's kind of sad how your description is exactly what's going on in the modern DNC debates. Sanders never gets a chance to truly refute when Clinton speaks and interrupts him.
The haircuts of those days! How weird the fashion of the 80´s. But Chomsky keeps his cool. Wearing a timeless jacket too... Totalitarian tendencies Silber. Entertaining to see a young NC.
what's with this guy and Hitler. What's his point exactly. He seems to be suggesting that we should attack anyone on the dubious basis that even if there's no evidence that they constitute a threat, "well look at Hitler, we didn't think of him as a threat either!"
Holy moly, who set up this "debate"?! It's like having belligerent drunken Ward Bond hector and denigrate Bertrand Russell. A supremely undignified president of BU more suited to being an extra on Hee Haw.
John Silber: "Somebody had the opportunity of correcting your historical mis-statements while you're still around." Died in 2012. Noam Chomsky still speaking truth to power.
I think the most interesting question for me is whether Silber was lying through his teeth of if he genuinely believed in what he's saying. The latter is actually scarier than the former.
i know right. parts of it seem like hes struggling to remember names and dates like reading note cards in his eyelids, so i think its partly rhetorical bluffing in service of a half baked "patriotism" overcompensated with memorized fact-bytes. So, you know, Conservatives.
Chomsky lays out a feature of our policy in central and south America that I almost never think about. They intervened because the policies were actually working.
And specifically because those policies were spreading to neighboring states. Chomsky is correct, people were truly being lifted out of poverty, and it was directly due to the ideas and actions of those who were being elected. The more those ideas spread, and they were guaranteed to spread due to their inherent effectiveness, the less able American business was to run roughshod over sovereign states' rights to the resources within their own borders. The "red scare" was truly powerful ideological kool-aid to keep the American people from asking any questions.
One of the few times I've see Chomsky actually get rattled or upset. Even in his debates with William F Buckley and Dershowitz he managed to keep his cool. That Silber was was a first-class a-hole though, might have something to do with it!
Eh, I think you’re being overly sensitive. It sounded more like he felt like Noam was doing a hit-and-run and wanted to correct him before the topic changed, program ended, or whatever. Sure there were some undertones but it was just a cheap intimidation tactic, indicating he was cornered and near defeat. There was no actual threat made.
"Mr. Silber has a very good reason for not wanting me to talk, and that is that he knows what the truth is as well as I do" Still one of Chomsky's best moments on live TV. He's sharp as a tack, even still today.
Despite being a conservative and an ally to Ronald Regan, Silber won the Democratic primary for governor in 1990, and when asked about the cost of healthcare for the elderly Silber responded ‘when you’ve had a long life and you’re ripe, then it’s time to go.” citing King Lear.
9:40 - I remember Norm Finkelstein using the same Luxembourg-USSR analogy that Chomsky made here. It was during his panel discussion with Wolf Blitzer and others. Finkelstein cited Abba Eban, former Israeli Foreign Affairs Minister, as the original source of this Luxembourg-USSR analogy.
An all-time classic Chomsky video, as others have mentioned. But I must register my amusement that UA-cam's automated copyright engine has auto-linked this video with the song "Semantics" by the band Endeavor, which contains a long sample from the end of the debate ("Did these things happen or didn't they?"). I had not heard of the band Endeavor, but I'm glad to have been turned onto them.
Yeah Noam won convincingly against Buckley, especially considering it was about Vietnam. Debating Chomsky on Vietnam was a fool’s errand. I think Buckley would’ve won had they debated the McCarthy era, classical republicanism, or monetary and fiscal policy, for example.
@@-dash I don’t think so. One fighter would be drunk, throwing punches that never land, and the other, precise punches that are not so hard as to take the drunk out right away. And to this end, it’s obvious who the drunk would be. It ain’t Noam.
This has now become a textbook case on how you dismiss somebody presenting grounded arguments with just a few cheap insults and a limited timeframe for the TV show. This should be taught to every student in communication and journalism.
The sheer illogicality of Silber's remarks is shocking beyond words! "...And when you suggest that Cruz is simply a figurehead and does nothing, you overlook the fact that Arturo Cruz was the Ambassador of the Sandinistas to the United States. And he was the head banker of the Sandinistas... ...until he finally broke with them when he found out that they were utterly totalitarian." Ummm??? What??? How the .... does the fact that Cruz was an ex-Sandanista contradict the assertion that he later becaume a figurehead who did nothing?? What exactly is Chomsky supposed to be overlooking here? Silber is saying things where he doesn't seem to even be attempting to make any kind of sense.
That's the most visibly frustrated I've ever seen Chomsky.
nope view him vs Buckley 1969.
Agree. More than with Buckley
Here it was after Silber disparaged his comment regarding Archbishop Romero
@@markboros2217 and a newspaper editor and photographer from La Cronica who were pulled outside from a coffee shop in San Salvador and hack to pieces with machetes by security forces. (source: "The Essential Chomsky" page 275)
@@paullake2736 that's crazy .. .. when was this?
Frightening that this Silber was in a position of authority in a learning institution. He argues like an angry 15 year old.
During his tenure at BU, teaches walked out, classes where held out of doors.
you can find lots of such little dictators in universities
"Really? I control the American press?" ahahahahah The way he said that was real.
6:17
That would be SO awesome if chomsky controlled the American press, the newspaper would be an interesting thing
+meeg_2005 I would actually read them without muttering "bullshit" to myself.
all of us control the american press apparently
Avi Gindratt #Facts 😂
I love Chomsky final "Yeah, okay" XD
Ocelotl Chimalpahin in his time it's like arguing with trump supporters... yeah okay... theirs no reasoning with you
When I try to speak with Trump supporters online, it quickly descends into me being called a 'cuckold libtard'. They don't realise that the most offensive part of that is to imply i'm liberal when I'm a libertarian communist.
So I'll say I think it's questionable Trump will enact protectionist tax policy, since he himself outsourced jobs in his business to 12 different countries and called it a smart business move. That even if he created jobs through this protectionism, he wants to overturn workplace health and safety regulations, so even if you get a job, you're more likely to slip on something that would otherwise be cleared up by those useless safety precautions inhibiting the 'free market'. The fall fractures your skull and then you're left with overwhelming debt under Trump's reversal of even the modest improvements of Obamacare. Apparently saying this makes me 'beta'. So I tell them to worship their wiggy orange overlord and there we both are, a digital time-capsule of scribblings for a future intelligent rat historian, in her research on how the human race pursued a path towards nuclear holocaust, 'reconstructing the peculiar and temporarily tragic circumstances that gave ratkind its big break' ;)
😂😂
Chomsky: Yeah, okay.
Translation: Christ fuck, you're dumb.
Yeah, he was pretty fed up with Silber.
This interview was frustrating because I was never really able to get a full grasp of the positions of Chomsky and Silber here.
Sibler, "you're lying again!!!" Chomsky, "I didn't even say anything yet..."
Fucking gold.....
To an idiot.
This debate is a good example why Noam is so important. During the war against the people of Nicaragua there were few other sources to get the truth.
NoExitLoveNow That is true; Chomsky has been indispensable in untangling the web of lies that surrounds us all for more than half a century, and his analysis is an incredible gift to every person who gives a shit about peace and justice.
Greg Vinson He has been untangling the web of lies that surrounds us for so long and he continues to do it to this day. It will be such an immense tragedy when he dies.
***** Who Chomsky?
***** How so?
+Jack Stratif History is made by important roles people had in their lives. Chomsky will continue to be alive as long as there is such thing as human history.
That moderator was quite lame in allowing Silber to go postal on a guest.
Dale Hitchcox Well what moderator on a corporate media outlet would want Chomsky consistently dunking on the pro-Contra narrative?
the moderator was very lousily passive in general
Ratings
This is precisely why Chomsky was all but banned from all major cable networks - he's exceedingly more intelligent than his interviewer and his panel opponent. The right (wrongfully) accuse him of being too far left, but this could not be more wrong. He simply questions institutional thinking - on both sides of the ledger.
Chomsky is loved in Nicaragua for standing up for there country. When chomskys wife past away the Nicaraguan people planted a forest in her memory.
That anecdote relates to a Colombian community
I know he would detest the title but I can't help saying that Noam Chomsky is a hero, an intellectual hero who fought for the truth in the face of vast repression. I love the man with all my heart!
Apparently you know nothing about the facts of Nicaragua or the subsequent history that demonstrates Chomsky didn't know what he was talking about.
***** scott is right. the history is proving that noam chomsky's decision is right, and following Silba, which is to just start a war because of Nicaragua is a stupid thing to do. john silba is just a dog of the government to mislead the stupid majority into the taste of freedom and democracy. do you also see how john silba (i mean that dick) was keep distracting noam chomsky because of his amour-prope to win chomsky in the program? study before you talk about this, philip, unles you want to be caught in the illusion made by the politicians.
Philip Mathews Yeah Silber was wrong on every account from his outrageous comparisons of Nicaragua to Nazi Germany, his denial that high ranking members of the contras were ex-somocistas, and his blatant fabrication that Arturo Cruz was not a figure head of the CIA. The fact he kept cutting Chomsky off and insulting him was indication that he was losing the argument.
To all the Chomskysites….the man was wrong in so many historical instances that even listening to his political views makes you the kind of person that expects a different outcome by adhering to the same method. Chomsky is an intellectual of specialised knowledge but he thinks he possesses general knowledge which is impossible to have. Even the smartest persons possess less than 1% of general human knowledge. He is the kind of guy that during interviews in the late 60s supported that communism has democratised - liberated societies, he denied the killing fields massacres in Cambodia, he cheered for Chavez and Castro and so on.
He deservedly thus, was included as a bad paradigm,in books that explore the reasons about "intellectuals" that are more often wrong than right (Paul Hollander's , Sowell's, etc). Sowell's argument was that of generalised vs specialised knowledge and the 1% paradigm above is drawn from his book "Intellectuals and Society" (which is a MUST read).
P.S. Once again Chomsky "was right"
www.heritage.org/americas/report/the-sandinista-war-human-rights
@@C_R_O_M________ Did you seriously use the Heritage Foundation as a source?
Chomsky is like Messi playing against a weekend warrior.
LIAM LIAMESQUE Except for the weekend warrior Chomsky is against actually has the power to ruin lives and destroy entire societies.
Max Schlepzig And now he's dead...
LIAM LIAMESQUE And people wonder why Chomsky gets cranky with pitiable flyspecks like Sam Harris these days... Noam's had decades of unfortunate encounters with these sorts of State apologists who profess civility and only want to dominate without evidence or intellectual honesty.
***** I can get Chomsky being impatient with Harris's naivety, which I'll call it in order to give him the benefit of doubt. In listening to his recent 2.5-hour discussion with Dan Carlin (who was _very_ patient and was able to pin Harris down without either of them flying off the handle), he seems to sincerely believe that nation-states - at least liberal Western ones - can act and react with a _moral_ and not purely mercenary axis. Carlin, who has a deep knowledge of military history (as well as Chomsky, who has a lifetime of personal experience) expressed greater cynicism with regards to the morals of state actors, particularly concerning 'interests' of significant economic gravity.
LIAM LIAMESQUE Chomsky quoting Hitler, saying how Poland was a treat, is a beautiful dismantle of that dude's rethoric
Even Silber liked that Luxembourg analogy. (;
Mulla Nasrudin: That was probably the best point made in the debate.
Jon Rowe Chomsky likes that analogy he has recently used it to describe a Palestinian threat to Israel. I actually think he used it again to describe the threat Iran truly plays to America.
Could someone explain it here
@@gFS.1 Chomsky was saying to Silber that to say Nicaragua - with its diminutive size - could be the launch point for an attacks on the US (as silver suggested) is like saying the US could invade Russia from Luxembourg
Silber says to Chomsky that he wanted correct him "while you're still around." (5:17) Silber exudes boiling rage, violence, authoritarianism, and fascism, arguing for increasing an illegal US terrorist war against Nicaragua and continually trying to silence Chomsky's voice throughout the segment. You can almost see Silber wanting to hit him or have some goons drag him out. Does anyone think the "while you're still around" statement was kind of a veiled death threat? Chomsky was only 58 here. Nowhere near a point of dying of old age.
and now he is a graceful 86 and proven correct and still going strong. I only found this cite because I was watching Decline of the Western World on the history channel w/ every great mind of our time including him validating his thought processes x 45 years. lmao it good to be liberal
graniteminerman Funny, Silber died in 2012 and Chomsky is still alive and kicking
TexLonghorn72 Yeah I am just reading up on him, any suggestions? He seems to be very aware of himself and the world he lives in.
graniteminerman WTF I just heard that part...Man I swear thing seem to be repeating with the new Sam Harris bout
graniteminerman I completely agree. I had the same exact feeling when I heard him say that.
I did some background reading on Silber, and I wasn't surprised to learn that he left a trail of alienation and revulsion throughout his life. He bullied and shouldered his way to the top of an elite institution, but Chomsky - like a laser - focuses on the documented facts and on the hypocrisy of spokespersons for imperial violence. This is a priceless clip and, as always, I'm astonished at how Chomsky maintains his focus and composure in the face of countless interruptions, nonsequiturs, and personal attacks. What a legend.
welcome to life in imperial america
If I was a man n "debating" Silber I'd 100% honestly PUNCH Silber out. I wouldn't have been able to help myself
That stock scandal was something. Taking 1/5 of the BUs endowments and dumping it into a tanking stock so his buddies could get rich. This guy should have had an army of milkshake anarchists following him around.
He did head the transformation of Boston University into a world-renown research University however.
@@Garrett1240 Let's not confuse the cheerleader with the coach.
13:08
The effective leader Edgar Chamorro, who Silber cites, testified to the ICJ that the contras did commit serious crimes, such as kidnap, rape, and torture. He testified further that "The CIA did not discourage such tactics. To the contrary, the Agency severely criticized me when I admitted to the press that the FDN had regularly kidnapped and executed agrarian reform workers and civilians. We were told that the only way to defeat the Sandinistas was to...kill, kidnap, rob and torture..."
In hindsight anyone who was on the fence or leaned toward the Silber position was entirely wrong, and Chomsky had been entirely right.
Now I see where Hannity and O'Reilly get their styles from. Silber was a terrible debater and a pathetic state apologist.
As the rest of the US MSM.
Actually the current (2021) repressive dictatorship under Sandanista leader Daniel Ortega - arguably the worst in Central America today and when no one is attacking them and the Soviet Union no longer exists - proves that concerns about the Sandanistas' dictatorial bent in the 1980s were well-founded.
@@sheilamacdougal4874
I’d check again - Ortega’s policies have greatly moderated over the years. He’s instituted a lot of pro-business reforms and even strengthened relations with the Vatican by adopting strong pro-life social policies.
@@MrRoboto81 Hilarious. I think it's you who had better check again: soldiers opening fire on peaceful protesters, killing dozens, political opponents arrested, all serious political challengers prevented from standing in upcoming elections, press stifled, etc., every feature of a dictatorship. Read Amnesty's latest report, or for that matter read anything: BBC, Guardian, Times, anything. Yes, you're that ignorant. Next you'll tell us that Pinochet was not a dictator because he "instituted a lot of pro-business reforms."
@Oliver Zinn What's ridiculous is your silly labeling. Ortega was always a repressive tyrant, whether he used "leftist" rhetoric or not, whether he had any social programs or not. You want to live in a fantasy Hansel and Gretel world where "the left" - whatever that means - is good, and conversely, anything bad is on the "right". Unfortunately Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Castro, Guevera, and now Ortega haven't cared much about the fairytale beliefs of sanctimonious little western ignoramuses.
Noam Chomsky - "...really I have control of the american press? are you mad brah?" lol
John Silber debates like a bully and a barabarian. Actually his facial expressions, his body language, his agitation and his outbursts of temper and name-calling are classic indications of a debater who is insecure in his position and senses that he is on thin ice.
William S. Bingo.
+William S. Bingo
Fox news
?
That's what I was thinking too. He's awfully defensive, I thought.
Yes. I notice that Silber is outraged at what Chomsky says, but Chomsky seems to expect Silber's line of attack, only becoming agitated at the infuriating way Silber keeps interrupting him.
Ever notice when people are on the defensive with Chomsky...they start freaking out, talking over him.....I've seen it so many times.
ever NOTICED IT?????? LOL. because there is no counterargument other than namecalling. his whole argument is that we are all equal across the world.
@@stevencoardvenice if an argument is weak or non existant its easy to debunk it. it doesnt need any effort. if you still rely on namecalling and think its appropriated you are just try to hide your lacking of any arguments
If one know someone is right, one often tries to silence their opponent.
just like the famous Buckley appearance, Buckley had to start yelling "stop talking!" to stop Chomsky from meticulously proving everything he said.
World famous intellectual Prof. Noam Chomsky debating with some john silber.
President of Boston University.
that doesnt mean a thing except that he had the right connections , wake up!
How the fuck was this guy head of Boston University?
He thinks the right things. That's how.
Earl Grey. Not just President, but an extremely SUCCESSFUL President.
Lol Chomsky at the end: "yeah ok."
Chomsky is like a bottle of scotch whiskey. It aged so well!
Chomsky stays rooted in facts and verifiable information, while his opponent, John Silber, resorts to constant disruptions and ad hominem attacks. Going as far as to call Chomsky a "phony." The moderator needs to do a better job at allowing each person to voice their uninterrupted views, rather than permitting inapproprite name-calling.
I reacted to that the interviewer did nothing. Interrupting each other in this sort of debate should always be denied I think.
Decades later, it's impossible to deny that John Silber made a complete fool of himself to anyone who understands what happened.
Decades later, on the contrary, the repressive dictatorship under Sandanista leader Daniel Ortega - arguably the worst in Central America today and when no one is attacking them and the Soviet Union no longer exists - proves that concerns about the Sandanistas' dictatorial bent in the 1980s were very well-founded.
@@sheilamacdougal4874 so because Ortega is corrupt after four decades in politics, the entire Sandinista movement was? Great logic. Would be shocked if you withheld such judgment for politicians you support…
@@ericpark8784 It doesn't prove that the entire Sandinista movement was corrupt (nor did I say so, nor was I even discussing corruption, but rather dictatorial or anti-democratic tendencies). What Ortega's repressive dictatorial current policy does show is that the Sandinista leadership was likely undemocratic, and like repressive dictators everywhere from Africa to Asia to Latin America to Russia to 1930s Germany, only paid lip service to or used democratic means when it suited them.
@@sheilamacdougal4874 Seeing your comments on Nicaragua, and seeing your comments on the GrayZone only proves not to give no pfp profiles the time of day,
the frank of the matter is in the bloody 2018 murderous coup attempt most of the deaths were police and govt supporters (Nicaraguan Red Cross). The FSLN won the most recent election no different than MAS in Bolivia and nothing you say will do anything to change that and thank god. The country will continue to improve despite horrendous sanctions.
@@beepboop1044 Ok Ortega lackey. I'll believe what international human rights groups, respected international observers and analysts say, and you can believe what Ortega's state propaganda and a couple of lying podcaster hacks say. Best wishes.
Fascinating to see Silber use common Nazi fallacy argumentation. Laughable today,
Notice how Chomsky is wearing the same tie he wore in his 1971 debate with Michel Foucault.
+Louie Fields Wow. How did you notice that?
+Louie Fields Want me to blow your mind? Try to find an instance when he wasn't wearing a *denim shirt*.
+12345 fin He used it a lot but it's not that hard to find.
Yeah, but he always wears a denim shirt, under a sweater or otherwise.
12345 fin lol true
5:30 - 5-37 - John Silber interrupting "Someone should correct you while you are still around.." lol --funny how he passed away before chomsky in 2012
Silber got taken to school but tuned out the lesson
Michael I like how you worded that comment haha
The only thing more satisfying than Chomsky's style of discourse and flawless intellectual rigour are the litany of microexpressions he barely managed to suppress. An anarchist gentleman.
John Silber: a brute who interrupts others and then screams "Let me finish"
It's testament to Chomsky's acumen and consistency to be able to look at these kinds of exchanged decades later and realize how correct he was then.
It's just common sense. It's only complicated in america. Which is completely brainwashed
@@stevencoardvenice Many countries have similar indoctrination problems.
@@excitedaboutlearning1639
Not really
Chomsky's contribution to our understanding of the world we live in is inestimable.
He will be revered, rightly so, for his integrity and scholarship long after he dies,
in stark contrast to people like Silber who will be remember only for promoting lies, instrumental in the death and torture of so many innocents.
Agreed ...he took on a superpower and its legions of propagandists almost alone for many years
I feel, as many others, so much respect and affection for him
He's not playing politics like Sam Harris or Hitchens. The latter two were/are impressed with their own minds, apparently, and saw/see politics as a way to display them
Chomsky, correctly, sees politics as intellectually shallow. He says anything we know in politics is trivial and it's easy enough to assemble the facts if you want to. He would rather stick to his arcane and exciting subjects but the lies told in the service of vicious power would not let him close the door to the suffering world.
Such a wonderful human
Silber is cold and dead, brother Noam is still with us.
Who's going to remember Silver? Who the fuck is he? Chomsky will be remembered for centuries because he's a legend
Silber took a beating here. He would have performed much better if not for all the darned facts.
Actually the current (2021) repressive dictatorship under Sandanista leader Daniel Ortega - arguably the worst in Central America today and when no one is attacking them and the Soviet Union no longer exists - proves that concerns about the Sandanistas' dictatorial bent in the 1980s were well-founded.
Quite sad that this man, Silber, is only remembered, and will only be remembered for this.
I've never seen Noam get so frustrated with somebody.
Did anybody else catch the someone needs to correct you "while you're still around" from Silber....spooky.
think he was calling him an old man, which is ironic because he died first
A good example of why Chomsky is a genuine intellectual
It's comical that this hypocrite and propaganda spewer Silber accuses Chomsky repeatedly of uttering falsehoods and being a propagandist, even going so far as to reference George Orwell's 1984. Chomsky is the one rebutting propaganda, and Silber's crude and slimy attempted role reversal hopefully didn't fool many people.
A Skeptical Human Sadly the aggressive tactic of yelling, calling an argument lies, and appearing incredulous is an effective means of diminishing credibility to unwitting onlookers. Silber provided very little rational response to anything chomsky was saying, obviously because his ideological perspective is entrenched with megalomania and dogma, which aren't good tools to do battle with a well cited fact onslaught Chomsky is world famous for providing.
What propaganda you fool? The fact that Chomsky still has a right to free speech is because the US government didn't allow the Soviets to take over the world. You and Chomsky have no idea what you are talking about! Look up for Yuri Bezemdov's lectures on UA-cam (Ex-KGB agent who defected) where he called people like Chomsky useful idiots. That's exactly what they were and you can see Chomsky during a late 60s interview with William Buckley Jr. proclaiming that communism brought democratisation - liberation in societies (!!!!). This idiot never apologised when Solzhenitsyn's book shook the world when it showed Westerners what kind of democratisation - liberation communism brought to them.
Actually the current (2021) repressive dictatorship under Sandanista leader Daniel Ortega - arguably the worst in Central America today and when no one is attacking them and the Soviet Union no longer exists - proves that concerns about the Sandanistas' dictatorial bent in the 1980s were well-founded.
@@sheilamacdougal4874 Does it prove that the United States was correct to support the Contras in murdering thousands of innocent people?
Chomsky is a living legend
Literal the first words out of John Silbers words were a lie.
I really enjoyed this comment! Thanks
Chomsky = "A beautiful mind" and Heart.
Wow, this happened in '86. Video quality looks like it belongs in the 60s.
Yes, and the thinking of Donahue belongs to the middle ages in Europe
Where is Sam Harris and his good intentions? pfff
+c4p0ne It's amazing these people who have called the left whiny morons making a fuss over nothing, yet a few student unions encouraging their students to click their fingers rather than clapping has driven the reactionaries into an utter frenzy.
+Edward Nigma Snapping fingers instead of clapping is the lamest bullshit I've ever heard.
BigEvan96 Yup, but funding terror organizations in Syria, the destruction of social democracy, decline in living standards all across the western world etc. all bother me a lot more than shit like that. It's annoying, but I barely care.
+wisildur Hey buddy, intentions are a more reliable model of future behavioral prediction than head counts- which offers absolutely no insight. Sure people can profess benign intentions yet cause much suffering, they can also profess malign intentions with the same effect- in the second case intention confers actual value. Head count metrics tell us absolutely nothing, for example the Allies in WW2 killed far more than the Axis, according to old Noams logic they would be assessed to be evil to a higher degree, we all know this is mistaken. Hitler professed good intention towards Germans but not other parties. Apparently in Noams view the USA is evil as it leads the head count tally. This is perverse reasoning. No attention is payed to context. Would you care to disabuse everyone as to why Noams view of intention is more enlightened? If you truly understand his position then it shouldnt be a problem.
homsky was vanquished here- Silber shut him down, he made solid points, its true that at that time and in context of the Cold War the Soviet Union was still a very insidious and pervasive threat to the USA in Latin America, the USA supported brutal oppositions but it was a means to an end to prevent Soviet imperialism, many Latin governments had strong Marxist tendencies and ultimately the proliferation of such regimes would have posed a direct threat to the USA. All in context, Chomsky a naive boy scout morality in which he views complex political situations through a very biased superficial anti-USA lens. Essentially the USA were trying to obviate Communist influence in neighboring countries...you cant blame them, considering Russia is still engaged in this sort of preemptive maneuvering to ensure the integrity of its interests ie Crimea. Chomsky only registers USA transgressions, he should be less biased and view American policy as being largely reactionary during that time period which it was. Chomsky loves to invoke moral equivalences in the Nazi vain...it is amusing how here Silber appealed to the Nazis here a few times to great effect.
+David Gilmour You're making the assumption that we were the 'good guys' in ww2. You're wrong about that. We were the winning side of a war between imperial powers. Both sides wanted world power, one side got it. So yeah, we were more evil than Germany if you want to put it that way. We are the only ones to use nuclear bombs, we killed more people, we tortured more people, we murdered more civilians, and we raped more women.
Keep in mind that America has told the entire world what to do, when to do it, and how to do it since WW2. America just did exactly what Germany wanted to do.
haha every time Silber talked, Noam is just thinking, "fucking idiot"
The fact that Silber has to continuously return to weak Nazi allegories just demonstrates his attachment to militarism and armed intervention.
What a moderator! damn, he let Silber interrupt Chomsky a lot
WW2 & 1984 - that's all right-wingers know, but they always get it the wrong way around.
silber tried to run for governor in mass....he ended up insulting a popular tv anchor and it cost him dearly
Scary to think about the fact that a guy that debates like Silber can have a ph.D in philosophy, and be the president of a university.
"Really? I control the press?"
The host should've stepped in to allow Chomsky to finish his points. It is completely unfair to call someone a liar(several times) and then never give them a chance to respond.
Exactly. It's kind of sad how your description is exactly what's going on in the modern DNC debates. Sanders never gets a chance to truly refute when Clinton speaks and interrupts him.
The haircuts of those days! How weird the fashion of the 80´s. But Chomsky keeps his cool. Wearing a timeless jacket too... Totalitarian tendencies Silber. Entertaining to see a young NC.
For a young Chomsky, check out his William H. Buckley interview. I think he was only about 41 or so.
Funny to see a grown man like Silber sulk
I wonder why silber agreed to show up for a debate when he didn’t want to debate at all. “That’s a bunch of rubbish” is a really enlightening argument
Noam Chomsky is a hero while silber is a bully and a liar.
Silver's reputation at BU was that of a bully
thank you for posting it...had only seen clips...:)
what's with this guy and Hitler. What's his point exactly. He seems to be suggesting that we should attack anyone on the dubious basis that even if there's no evidence that they constitute a threat, "well look at Hitler, we didn't think of him as a threat either!"
I'm surprised John Silber didn't get to host a show on FOX News.
He'd have been perfect.
I respect how Chomsky maintains his composure despite Sibler's rude remarks.
Holy moly, who set up this "debate"?! It's like having belligerent drunken Ward Bond hector and denigrate Bertrand Russell.
A supremely undignified president of BU more suited to being an extra on Hee Haw.
***** LOL-apt description.
***** I liked Ward Bond in _The Quiet Man_. I'd compare Silber more to Frank Burns.
Matthew Ward
Alright, I was comparing more to who Ward Bond was in real life.
He's a good actor though.
+ThawedTroglodyteJury L M A O
+ThawedTroglodyteJury
*chuckle*
Ward Bond?
"Oy ken lick any mon in the hoose!"
How many people are going to get _that_ reference?
John Silber: "Somebody had the opportunity of correcting your historical mis-statements while you're still around." Died in 2012. Noam Chomsky still speaking truth to power.
I think the most interesting question for me is whether Silber was lying through his teeth of if he genuinely believed in what he's saying. The latter is actually scarier than the former.
i know right. parts of it seem like hes struggling to remember names and dates like reading note cards in his eyelids, so i think its partly rhetorical bluffing in service of a half baked "patriotism" overcompensated with memorized fact-bytes. So, you know, Conservatives.
Ah, the ancient right wing tactic of not letting anyone else talk if they don't agree with them. They truly love democracy.
It has only gotten worse...
I’d like to congratulate Mr. Silber on nearly 8 without an angry outburst. Those classes must have really worked!
i wonder why aaron p turned offhis replies - probably the same reason that silber kept trying to interrupt chomsky
Chomsky at the end....."yea, okay" while taking his mic off, haha
Chomsky lays out a feature of our policy in central and south America that I almost never think about. They intervened because the policies were actually working.
And specifically because those policies were spreading to neighboring states. Chomsky is correct, people were truly being lifted out of poverty, and it was directly due to the ideas and actions of those who were being elected. The more those ideas spread, and they were guaranteed to spread due to their inherent effectiveness, the less able American business was to run roughshod over sovereign states' rights to the resources within their own borders. The "red scare" was truly powerful ideological kool-aid to keep the American people from asking any questions.
Yesssss. Someone found it!! I've only heard the audio so far.
LOL Still laughing at Chomskys "Yeh OK" when he was thanked at the end. "Yeh, Whatever" .
You’d never see this kind of debate nowadays. Chomsky is a fountain of truth. A man speaking facts?! What madness!
Chomsky getting irritated. You don't see that very often :)
One of the few times I've see Chomsky actually get rattled or upset. Even in his debates with William F Buckley and Dershowitz he managed to keep his cool. That Silber was was a first-class a-hole though, might have something to do with it!
I had to see this again. Thanks for posting it. John Silber, what a jerk. He croaked in 2012, good riddance.
I love how everyone ignores the threat on Chomsky’s life he made at 5:33
While you’re still around. Nobody should threaten anyone, but it does happen. Silber showed himself up and looked foolish, he lost his cool.
Eh, I think you’re being overly sensitive. It sounded more like he felt like Noam was doing a hit-and-run and wanted to correct him before the topic changed, program ended, or whatever. Sure there were some undertones but it was just a cheap intimidation tactic, indicating he was cornered and near defeat. There was no actual threat made.
"Mr. Silber has a very good reason for not wanting me to talk, and that is that he knows what the truth is as well as I do"
Still one of Chomsky's best moments on live TV. He's sharp as a tack, even still today.
You nailed it, that is the most telling part of the interview
Despite being a conservative and an ally to Ronald Regan, Silber won the Democratic primary for governor in 1990, and when asked about the cost of healthcare for the elderly Silber responded ‘when you’ve had a long life and you’re ripe, then it’s time to go.” citing King Lear.
its one thing to be ignorant but another to be smart and educated and still promote evil, mega karmic
John Silber came across as a real creep.
we need to preserve chomsky DNA to make more smart people to help us not so smart people aware of the world we live in.
My man Noam dropping fact bombs all over John Silber's ass and looking cool af while doing so.
9:40 - I remember Norm Finkelstein using the same Luxembourg-USSR analogy that Chomsky made here. It was during his panel discussion with Wolf Blitzer and others. Finkelstein cited Abba Eban, former Israeli Foreign Affairs Minister, as the original source of this Luxembourg-USSR analogy.
yeah I saw that too. I was wondering if Finkelstein was referencing this debate
... And it seems the benefit of hindsight sides with Mr. Chomsky.
I LOVE how obviously Silber got enraged and tried to shut down the disagreement because his sentiment for the state was hurt - what a clear shill!
An all-time classic Chomsky video, as others have mentioned. But I must register my amusement that UA-cam's automated copyright engine has auto-linked this video with the song "Semantics" by the band Endeavor, which contains a long sample from the end of the debate ("Did these things happen or didn't they?"). I had not heard of the band Endeavor, but I'm glad to have been turned onto them.
I want Noam Chomsky as my Education Secretary... if Howard Zinn were alive he'd definitely be in my cabinet. The time is now.
Noam Chomsky, prizefighter
Silber soundly dispatched. 17 years earlier, Buckley was KO’d by Noam.
Yeah Noam won convincingly against Buckley, especially considering it was about Vietnam. Debating Chomsky on Vietnam was a fool’s errand.
I think Buckley would’ve won had they debated the McCarthy era, classical republicanism, or monetary and fiscal policy, for example.
@@-dash It’d be Tyson/Spinks, Chomsky winning the belt in seconds.
@@youmothershouldknow4905 Let’s not kid ourselves, Buckley v. Chomsky debating McCarthy and anti-communism would be Thrilla in Manila
@@-dash I don’t think so. One fighter would be drunk, throwing punches that never land, and the other, precise punches that are not so hard as to take the drunk out right away. And to this end, it’s obvious who the drunk would be. It ain’t Noam.
This Silber guy seems a little obsessed with Hitler...
Kind of like J Edgar Hoover being a “little” obsessed with homosexuals.
This has now become a textbook case on how you dismiss somebody presenting grounded arguments with just a few cheap insults and a limited timeframe for the TV show. This should be taught to every student in communication and journalism.
Noam is a world treasure!
Chomsky has been proven correct of course.
Silber supported totalitarian thugs who were later found guilty of genocide (Ríos Montt), and he debated like one too.
The genocidal maniacs were BU benefactors
Rios Mont is a right wing dictatorships he will have some simpathy
The sheer illogicality of Silber's remarks is shocking beyond words! "...And when you suggest that Cruz is simply a figurehead and does nothing, you overlook the fact that Arturo Cruz was the Ambassador of the Sandinistas to the United States.
And he was the head banker of the Sandinistas...
...until he finally broke with them when he found out that they were utterly totalitarian." Ummm??? What??? How the .... does the fact that Cruz was an ex-Sandanista contradict the assertion that he later becaume a figurehead who did nothing?? What exactly is Chomsky supposed to be overlooking here? Silber is saying things where he doesn't seem to even be attempting to make any kind of sense.
Ah this from back in the day when American journalism still existed!
Love Noam. Savage AF
That interviewer/moderator is just completely ineffective.
Silber seems to be just straight up lying about the stuff in El Salvador.