-14 votes

Dershowitz vs Chomsky debate Israel at Harvard

Dershowitz vs Chomsky debate Israel at Harvard

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ux4JU_sbB0

For those who are seriously interested in the subject of the Israel and Palestinian conflict, this is an excellent debate.

BOTH Dershowitz and Chomsky are for a NWO, the difference is Dershowitz wants Israel and Palestine to become peaceful states under a U.N. corporate government, where Chomsky wants Israel and Western religion eliminated to establish government as "GOD".

To those considering to post on this thread:

I would appreciate serious thoughts, opinions, and questions, to which I will respectfully respond. While you are respectfully free to downvote, name call, and insult me, I will not be responding to such posts.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Hey, was just about to post

Hey, was just about to post this video...Totally disagree with the description provided here, and would've been posting because Chomsky ripped Dershowitz to shreds...to the point where Dershowitz couldn't defend his position at all and had to resort to childish "on planet-chomsky, blah...." - but I encourage you all to watch it and decide for yourselves.

admittedly have read a bit of

admittedly have read a bit of Chomsky's work - 4 or 5 books - and none of Dershowitz's. I refuse to read him because of his history of outright lies regarding Chomsky (i.e. "he's a supporter of holocaust deniers.") Do you have a recommendation on a more honest supporter of the other side of this debate worth reading?

Wow. That Dershowitz is

Wow. That Dershowitz is freaking obnoxious. Yuck.

Resist the temptation to feed the trolls.

ifamericansknew.org please share--thanks

please take a look and learn the facts about our so-called friend, Israel. ifamericansknew.org please share on all social media--thank you!

❣Granger❣

What is going on here? What kind of a debate are you hosting? I am not sure of what your position is by reading your post. I see you defending Israel on other threads but still do not know what your position is.

"BOTH Dershowitz and Chomsky are for a NWO, the difference is Dershowitz wants Israel and Palestine to become peaceful states under a U.N. corporate government, where Chomsky wants Israel and Western religion eliminated to establish government as "GOD".

I actually struggled my way through most of the debate and could not find any reference to the above statement. I think Chomsky clearly won the debate though. Chomsky is a useful idiot, but the one place where he makes sense is on this particular subject. Regardless, a debate between a lying Zionist extremist (Dershowitz) and a gatekeeping socialist hypocrite (Chomsky)is not all too pertinent to what I think is the real debate. Chomsky actually hit the nail on the head in his first statement. Why is it our business? Because we finance it. The real debate is why are we financing it. If my money did not go over there to pay for the atrocities perpetrated by Israel I would not debate the issue. But since my money pays for this nonsense I have an obligation to speak out against it. Also, since my money goes to the wholesale slaughter of Arabs, partially on behalf of surreptitious demands by Israel, I think Israel is my business.

My personal opinion is that Israel was created fraudulently and has since been a thorn in the side of the entire world. Yes, a great big throbbing thorn. Yes, thorn.

So what to do? What can one do when they are being blackmailed with nuclear 'holocaust'?
http://rense.com/general35/isrnuk.htm
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cpc-pubs/farr.htm
Yep, that's right. That is what the 29 standing ovations was all about. I guess is all makes sense. What choice do those politicians have? I say cut 'em off. Stop the funding and support of their terror. Call their bluff.

Now what exactly are you arguing, ❣Granger❣?

Oh, btw, my Israeli friends used to always joke about there being too many rocks in Israel. They joked about the disproportionate weapons between the Arabs (their word, they won't utter 'Palestinian' as it would de-legitimize the existence of Israel)and them.

I see your post below (((((ducky)))))

I have been reading your first link, and fact checking, for hours, so please forgive me if my response is later than you appreciate.

I'm having a difficult time fact checking, because the article, with all 173 references, does not explain, but leaves me with more questions, number one being, where does Russia fit it with the Jonathan Pollard case?

I like wiki, because wiki gives people the opportunity to make corrections and dispute issues within a topic. Wiki does not mention Russia (from my count, and I read the article twice, However, I can admit, I took a few work breaks, because I have chores, and animals don't understand, "Wait, I'm busy", so perhaps I missed it, but I see nothing about Russia, which, because the paper you sent appears to be concerned with Jonathan Pollard giving maps to Russia, none of that is mentioned in Wiki.. I would suggest Commander Farr, (or Barry R. Schneider, Director
USAF Counterproliferation Center ) make his corrections on Wiki, although I guess I should check the history and see if he made an attempt? He did not.

If you have not read the wiki on Jonathan Pollard, I would like to suggest you read it. It is not as long as the article you posted me, but I do believe it is an accurate account, and I bet you might be a little surprized to see who is on Pollard's side, and who is NOT. Especially WHO is not (conspiracy theorists could have a hay day).

The Russian situation aside,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard

From the top:

The first reference, I need help with:

144. Creveld, op. cit., 1998, 252.
I have no odea what this is refering.

ISRAEL BLACKMAILS US.

I have a hard time with this, because blackmail is exposing a secret within a secret. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackmail

So you are saying by giving me this link, that Israel is blackmailing the USA with nuclear war? For ultimately this is the case being made against Israel in this article from MY perspective. Prhaps you have another that I have overlooked or misunderstood?

"One other purpose of Israeli nuclear weapons, not often stated, but obvious, is their "use" on the United States. America does not want Israel's nuclear profile raised.[144]"

So your article begind with ONE OTHER PURPOSE... apparently, I am missing the complete book? Of is is stated anywhere, I do not know where it is public. That puts me at a loss on several levels. To me, this is a conspiracy theory, and why Jonathan Pollard was mentioned (with no back up in wiki)?

"They have been used in the past to ensure America does not desert Israel under increased Arab, or oil embargo, pressure and have forced the United States to support Israel diplomatically against the Soviet Union. Israel used their existence to guarantee a continuing supply of American conventional weapons, a policy likely to continue.[145]" [145] 145. Valry, Nicholas, "Israel's Silent Gamble with the Bomb," New Scientist (12 December 1974), 807-09. http://www.google.com/search?q=valerie+nicholas&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ADBS_en#rls=com.microsoft:en-us%3AIE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7ADBS_en&sclient=psy-ab&q=valeValry%2C+Nicholas%2C+%22Israel%27s+Silent+Gamble+with+the+Bomb%2C%22+New+Scientist+(12+December+1974)%2C+807-09.+&oq=valeValry%2C+Nicholas%2C+%22Israel%27s+Silent+Gamble+with+the+Bomb%2C%22+New+Scientist+(12+December+1974)%2C+807-09.+&gs_l=serp.12...86848.86848.0.89830.1.1.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.1...1c.1.14.psy-ab.DA-_pdv8Chs&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.46751780,d.cGE&fp=b940c212f59370e9&biw=1008&bih=678

There is no reference on the computer, and I do not have the book on hand to refer to the reference provided in the article.

So, from the beginning, two references, go nowhere, the claims I am unable to confirm. Shall I continue ((((((ducky)))))) or move to the next article?

In summery, I do not agree that it is Israel who is blackmailing the USA. I believe the USA is entangled with Israel because the USA CHOOSES to be entangled.

Do you disagree?

❣Granger❣

From my article:

"Not only were the Israelis interested in American nuclear weapons development data, they were interested in targeting data from U.S. intelligence. Israel discovered that they were on the Soviet target list. American-born Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard obtained satellite-imaging data of the Soviet Union, allowing Israel to target accurately Soviet cities. This showed Israel's intention to use its nuclear arsenal as a deterrent political lever, or retaliatory capability against the Soviet Union itself. Israel also used American satellite imagery to plan the 7 June 1981 attack on the Tammuz-1 reactor at Osiraq, Iraq.'

Israel discovered they were on the Soviet target list through the satellite-imaging data stolen from the US Govt. The data the Americans (via Pollard) had revealed demonstrated to Israel that they [Israel] were on the Soviet targets list. That is how the Soviets were involved. I never read anything about Pollard giving anything to Russia.

You said,

"If you have not read the wiki on Jonathan Pollard, I would like to suggest you read it. It is not as long as the article you posted me, but I do believe it is an accurate account, and I bet you might be a little surprized to see who is on Pollard's side, and who is NOT. Especially WHO is not (conspiracy theorists could have a hay day)."

Who? What? Where? Please explain.

From Wiki - Samson Option

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_option

"In the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Arab forces were overwhelming Israeli forces and Prime Minister Golda Meir authorized a nuclear alert and ordered 13 atomic bombs be readied for use by missiles and aircraft. The Israeli Ambassador warned President Nixon of “very serious conclusions" if the United States did not airlift supplies. Nixon complied. This is seen by some commentators on the subject as the first threat of the use of the Samson Option."

Referenced after the quote are Hersh, Cohen, Gaffney, Farr, and Cohen, NYT, 2003:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/06/opinion/the-last-nuclear-m...

❣Granger❣ Why poo poo all of this? Why do you think the US bows down to Israel so much? Israel, from every angle, is a loose canon. Remember what she does to Lebanon and Gaza every seven years or so? I bet Lebanon will be flushed out again soon. Israel will hit any and all dairies, farms, civilian apartment buildings, airports, water treatment facilities, and electric grid just to set them back.

Just think, if the US does not deter all of Israel's enemies, what will Israel do? She already threatened to do so in 73'. Does anyone doubt the Samson Option is not for real? Netanyahu wants to pre-emptively nuke Iran. If the US does not step in 'poof' Israel renders the entire earth inhabitable. She is a tempest in a teapot. How can you deny that after so much research? You can still love the Jewish people and desire to visit Israel. But think about it. Why the 29 ovation? They just aren't that nice of a 'friend'. Remember she dropped white phosphorus onto civilian targets in Gaza? She peppered the USS Liberty for hours. Remember the Flotillas? What about the Gazan concentration camp? What about the settlements she refuses to stop? What about the spiderweb of roads through the West Bank hindering the Palestinians to visit sometimes their neighbors? What about the land she stole from Syria? Lebanon? What about the homes and olive groves she dozes over and just takes? What about the checkpoints that are worst than Checkpoint Charlie? Should I go on?

And, ❣Granger❣, how in the world is it our responsibility to spend trillions remaking the ME so that a few crazy individual (Jews) can live in a place that is not rightfully theirs and that comes with the hazards it does? If they chose to live among enemies (imo, it is 100% their fault with their behavior and attitudes), than they should pay for their own defense.

Pin down exactly when the ME wars really began. Yep. Exactly when the neo-cons (a bunch of Israelis and their Anglo bitches) took power. What did the neocons do to this faltering country? They beat the shit out it through debt until it was unrecognizable. Summers, Greenspan, Rubin, Shalom Bernanke are ALL directly responsible for scratching Glass-Steagal and blowing the derivative, real estate, credit, and bond bubbles. Which will not only be the demise of the US but the world at large when the the last three burst. How can the four most responsible people for the world debt bubble just happen to be ultra-Zionist Jews when they only comprise 2% of the population? Give us a break. We are all just using common sense when we try to understand what has happened.

I absolutely can't understand how you went from being awake on this issue to where you are now. Did they place Israeli GOP plants at your GOP conference you attended? Believe me, every peoples loves touting their own horns. Israel is not as great as Israelis tout. And Israel absolutely does place PR plants in evangelical churches and at GOP functions. The rewards are chilling trillions. $$$$$$$$$$$$$

Have a superb Sunday. Say hello to Father for me.

(((((((((ducky))))))))))

((((((((ducky))))))) I genuinely appreciate what you have contributed to this thread more than any poster and I THANK YOU for the links, which take a lot of study, as I am still studying the first one.

I need to suspend this heavy, but much appreciated debate, because I have some personal serious issues, that have been devloping, that are so serious, debating Israel/Palestine/+ have been easier to understand.

I knew my Mother had been mudered, I just got more proof, and found out my father's death was an illegal assisted suicide.. I'm going to be reporting the crimes today and seeking a criminal law firm that is on a national level since I did not live in the same state as my parents.

I hope you can understand and forgive me, because there are some issues on DP that are not so heavy as this (I LOVE YOU FOR GIVING ME THIS EDUCATION), and if you see me respond to some article on DP, it's just because it's on the lighter side.. and I can handle it with out deep contemplation.

THANK YOU ducky... let's meet back here in a few days or when I have more time to masticate what you have provided for my education on this issue.

God Bless YOU!

❣Granger❣

PM me if you want to talk about it. Deep shit, indeed.

Good Luck, lots of ((((((((((hugs))))))))))))).

Hi ((((ducky)))))

What's going on here? I'm educating myself and learning how to debate this issue better.

What kind of debate am I hosting here? One where I am not reading nothing but hate, insults, and name calling concerning the Israel/Palestine issue.

My position for the moment would be, "the devil's advocate". My mind on this issue will not be made up. I fully intend to go to Israel for an extended stay to 1. Build homes for Palestinians. 2, Volunteer for the IDF. 3. Tour the holy land with an, a)Catholic, b) Protestant, c) Jewish and d) Muslim (Sunni) guide, and do the food tour (thank you for that most excellent suggestion!).

What you quoted from me in your post, is what conclusion I have been drawing from my unguided studies on the subject.

You say Chomsky won the debate and then insult him, but offer no reason why you believe he won. "He made sense on this one subject"... how so?

I'm with Dershowitz at this point and I do not see any lies he's telling. Below I responded to 5 links and explained why I do not buy this idea Dershowitz is lying. You are welcome to pick any one of them and challenge me (Dershowitz to you).

I don't share your view on Chomsky's first question. I don't believe he was coming from an economic position. I believe his AGENDA is anti-religous, and asks, "WHY is IT our business?", because to him, it is a religious war, as it is to many people who see THE DOME OF THE ROCK as THE prize.

As for financing IT, I do not agree with you. We are dependent on Israel for their technology, which includes advances in technological weapons.

I encourage you to continue studying, because your accusations of Israel are not correct by my research. Dershowits shows a map connecting Gaza to West Bank. Chomsky has NO solution. Dershowitz believes there can be PEACE, and I agree with Dershowitz.

How was Israel created "frauduantly" The Arab rulers accepted the Balfore Treaty and the Arab rulers asked the Palestinians to leave. Why blame Israel? Today, over 1.5 million Arabs are being displaced by Arabs in Syria, 80K murdered and this has NOTHING to do with Israel, yet people blame Israel.

Calling Israel a "Thorn", to me, means nothing except you oppose the establishment of Israel (and I will ASSUME because your choice of words leave me littel choice) that while you call Chomsky a, "useful idiot", (and I asked people refrain from name calling and insults so I really wish you could have respected me and found more approriate terms than "useful idiot, "thorn.. the insults to me are lack of courage and compassion), you would be on MY IDEA of what Chomsky represents, Atheist who sees religion as the problem and wiping Israel off the map is THE only solution.. please correct my assumption).

I appreciate the links ((((ducky))), and will study them and give you a report when I have time.. I have to get going to my meetings.

I say Dershowitz has a very good solution, and looking at the dates of your papers, Israel and peace negotiations have advanced, today Palestine is celebrating the opening od a Kentucy Fried Chicken store. http://www.policymic.com/articles/7279/portrait-of-palestine...

Hate has never been a solution no matter how good it makes one feel.

Blame may make one "feel good", but it does not offer a solution.

LOVE is the answer. LOVE THY ENEMIES. PEACE BE WITH YOU.

❣Granger❣

I appreciate you playing devil's advocate. I think the media and our government are doing a fine job of it too though. I thought the name calling was prohibited against you. I thought my words were just descriptions of how I see it. Sorry for breaking the rules.

I called Dershowitz a liar because, as we both witnessed, Finklestein exposed it. Chomsky did too. He is a liar.

Chomsky works for the PTB. He is a gatekeeper. His complete failure to grasp simple economics earns him the title of an idiot. A first grader knows more about economics than him. I have to believe that this position of his is his job as gatekeeper. So he is useful to someone.

Please see the links I provided for 'thorns'. If nuclear blackmail on the US and the World is not a 'thorn', I do not know what is.

You will have to provide proof that Israel is an asset to us. They blackmail us. That is the relationship. The one country that has attacked us in the past hundred years is Israel. And multiple times. What kind of relationship is that?

I think it is a fabulous idea to visit Israel. Traveling is the best way to learn. Maybe you can figure it all out and report back with good news. The food will make it all worth while.

My solution: Call their bluff. Quit supporting them militarily and monetarily. See if they mean business with their Samson Option (please address). My whole point is about the Samson Option. Which, btw, the threat of which has been used by Meir against Nixon.

"In the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Arab forces were overwhelming Israeli forces and Prime Minister Golda Meir authorized a nuclear alert and ordered 13 atomic bombs be readied for use by missiles and aircraft. The Israeli Ambassador warned President Nixon of “very serious conclusions" if the United States did not airlift supplies. Nixon complied. This is seen by some commentators on the subject as the first threat of the use of the Samson Option."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

That is a very unhealthy relationship even in the most flawed of 'friendships'.

❣Granger❣ Still love ya❣

Why all the Hate?

Hey, why all the hate folks? This actually is a pretty good bit to watch. Informative too. Thanks for posting Granger! Was a welcome sight to come back to the DP after an absence and see you still hard on the job educating us here!

I'm a Professor, my name is Wall

HELLO Professor Wall!!

I'm sorry that I missed you here on DP.. was on the phone..

Thank you for the support.

I learned much from this thread myself and will make that another thread for another day.

Peace be with you my friend!

How does that Green Day song go?

Wasn't it something along the lines, Fkn American Idiot!

How did you come to this conclusion?

Re: "Chomsky wants Israel and Western religion eliminated to establish government as "GOD"." How did you come to this conclusion?

Personal debates

Many Jews are not believers. There is a theory saying the religious have a gene http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/278/1717/2519

In Israel, the majority are not believers, they are secular

There are secular zionist and religous zionist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Zionism

This essentially is what the debate was about, However, because our education system has little tolerance for religion (seperation beteen education and religion), it is not addressed openly.

I don't see...

I don't see how you pointing out a distinction between Zionism and religious Zionism, and the existence of a theory about genes, has anything to do with your assertion that Chomsky wants to eliminate western religion and make government God. I didn't notice any of this in the debate. Is that really how you came to the conclusion that those are Chomsky's goals?

Fair enough

Do we agree the Dome of the Rock is contested in Palestine/Israel?

Mark Twaon on Palestine/Israel http://www.shechem.org/machon/mtwain/index.html

Again

Again, I don't see how this has anything to do with your assertion which I asked you to back up. Show me where Chomsky says that he wants to eliminate western religion, or make government God. Or at least give some form of argument that would demonstrate that he wants to do those things. So far you haven't said anything about Chomsky in your attempt to justify your claims about him. If you can't support your own assertion, it might be best to rescind it.

I do not have a direct quote

If you are asking me for a direct quote, I have no more a direct quote from Chomsky than I do Obama.

I was trying to establish an "argument", by asking you if we can agree that the Dome of the Rock is in dispute. I thought, being the dome of the Rock is a religious site, we could begin there.

When there is a lack of direct quote, one presents what evidense they have that lead them to their conclusion.

I offered you two wiki sites, one being Libertarian-socialists, who are Athesists, like Noam Chomsky, who claims to be a Libertarian -socialist, and Consevative Libertarians, which on Wiki Ron Paul is named, and WE tend to be on the religious side. Ron Paul is a practicing Christian and I am a practicing Catholic.

Is it possible for you to reveal about yourself what your polical and religious foundation is?

I just want you to back up what you say.

Re: "I was trying to establish an "argument", by asking you if we can agree "

An argument shouldn't have to be contingent upon my perspective as your assertion was made publicly rather than to me personally.

Re: "When there is a lack of direct quote, one presents what evidense they have that lead them to their conclusion. I offered you two wiki sites, one being Libertarian-socialists, who are Athesists, like Noam Chomsky, who claims to be a Libertarian -socialist, and Consevative Libertarians,"

I didn't get the links for those, but that isn't an argument either. If you have an argument, just present it rather than bringing up a bunch of information at random. If you are trying to say that all libertarian socialists are anti-religious, and Chomsky is guilty by association, I'd have to say that it isn't a sound argument.

Re: "Is it possible for you to reveal about yourself what your polical and religious foundation is?"

I voted for Ron Paul, and I don't really have a position for or against the two kinds of Zionism as I haven't really looked into them for lack of interest. I think you could consider me a conservative Christian. If you look at my older posts, you'll see that I'm not anti-religious or anti-jewish. I'm somewhat familiar with Chomsky, but am not really for or against him. I know some people who profess to be Christians who like and promote Chomsky and his politics, so I have doubts about your assertion. I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I just want you to back up what you say.

Where do you get your basis of "What an argument SHOULD N'T be?"

While I agree that NOT ALL Libertarian -socialists are atheist, or ALL Libertarian -conservatives are Religious, as not ALL Republicans are NEOCONS or ALL Democrats are Communists, as any generality is IMO ALWAYS WRONG, I was hoping that you would debate within the generalities. I WAS WRONG.

So, WHILE, NOT ALL Libertarian -socialists are atheists, and NOT ALL libertarian -conservatives are religious, for the most part, NOT ALL, but by MY PERSPECTIVE, which is not to be said as if IT IS THE WHOLE TRUTH, but merely MY personal perspective, REPRESENTED by those who are athiests and religious.

The links I provided were further down, and I apologose for that, as I WAS WRONG to assume, you had read the thread, they are posted twice on this thread, and if you need me to google them and provide them for you I will be happy to.

Chomsky, who is a huge speaker for Libertarian-Socialsist is an Atheist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky

Thank you for the personal background. As a Catholic, I disagree with Chomsky's perspective about my Church 80%.

I'm using the term 'argument' in a technical sense...

Re: "Where do you get your basis of "What an argument SHOULD N'T be?""

I'm using the term 'argument' in a technical sense; that is, there are forms of arguments such as 'modus ponens', 'modus tollens', etc., and you haven't presented any argument forms in that sense. I do not mean 'argument' in the sense of the common misuse of the term, which carry's some vague sense of people presenting their thoughts in a dispute with or without argument forms. An argument without structure is not really an argument. You've presented some random premises, but haven't tied them together to get your conclusion, so there is no argument.

Re: "I was hoping that you would debate within the generalities. I WAS WRONG."

I'm not debating, I'm just asking for you to present an argument to support your assertion. I still haven't seen that. So far I gather that you want to deal in some sort of generality. OK, I can't say that would produce a very persuasive argument about the desires of a particular individual, but at least share the argument that uses the generality you apparently want to use. I don't agree with a lot of Chomsky's views either. Linguistically I think functionalism makes more sense than the formalism he promotes, and I think he conflates Christianity with nominalism. But the fact that you disagree with him about your religion, and the fact that Chomsky is some sort of Atheist, doesn't entail the assertion I asked you to back up.

b

I provided you a wiki link on Chomsky, and on his bio, on the right of the page, you will see under the heading RELIGION: "No Religion" (atheist).

I apologise for presenting a poor argument in your opinion; However, I am not an instructor or expert by any means. I consider myself a student of the subject, and I am learning from this thread and experience, which was my goal.

I apologise for not understanding what your point is, or exactly what you are expecting from me in an argument. I have done the best of my abilty, as a student, with no teacher, no agenda other than to educate myself, to better understand the Israel/Palestine situation from the Chomsky/ Desrshowitz debate. If this is offensive to you, I apologise.

Please forgive me, for my lack of debating skills.

Have a great posting day!

You haven't presented a poor argument.

Re: "I provided you a wiki link on Chomsky, and on his bio, on the right of the page, you will see under the heading RELIGION: "No Religion" (atheist)."

Yes, and what does this have to do with your assertion about what he wants to happen?

Re: "I apologise for presenting a poor argument in your opinion;"

You haven't presented a poor argument. You haven't presented an argument at all. You've just presented an assertion with some random unrelated points. You haven't related any of the information you've provided to the conclusion which is supposed to result.

Re:"I apologise for not understanding what your point is, or exactly what you are expecting from me in an argument. ... If this is offensive to you, I apologise."

I'm not offended at all, and have no hard feelings towards you. What I was hoping was that you would provide a reason for why you believe your assertion. I can't see inside of your mind to make the connections you make between the information you've presented, to come up with your assertion as a conclusion. I'm simply asking why you would say what you do. Is it a hunch, is it a feeling, or did you use logic? If logic, then you should be able to demonstrate your reasoning. I don't mean this as an insult, but you may want to consider taking a course on logic or reading a book about it. Perhaps you are using some form of logic, but just don't know how to enunciate it. I really think logic is something that should be taught in 3rd or 4th grade and I don't know why our education system waits until college to teach it. Not knowing about logic (which is more like math than philosophy) doesn't mean you are less intelligent, but knowing about it can help you in every area of life.

It is MY take

It is MY take, and I apologise because I thought that I have made it clear, that it is MY PERSONAL concept of what Chomsky (and Dershowitz for that matter) want, in a NWO.

I am not claiming that MY opinion is correct, I am only claiming that it is MY opinion. I offered the wiki link to Chomsky as a reference to his religion, because I found no other source that mentioned his religion, and if you have one, please provide it.

Perhaps you KNOW for a fact, exactly what Chomsky wants to happen?

What good is a Jewish State to an atheist, and I belive Chomsky refers himself as a libertarian socialist, for the worker class, besides a historical marker?

Why would Chomsky support a Jewish state? To me he does not in any way ,shape or form. Perhaps you can educate me on that?

I'm apologizing to you, because I'm not understanding what you are contributing to the debate, except that the reasons I am asserting, you do not see as reason.

I'm not understanding you.

I have come into this debate as a student, not a teacher, not an expert (am I repeating myself?)

Chomsky, from everything I have seen so far is an athesit libertarian-socialist, and PLEASE, if you have something, anything to say otherwise please provide it.

Why would Chomsky support a Jewist State? I don't know. I can find anthing that claims Chomsky supports Israel, and so far, everything I have read is that Chomsky does not support Israel.

I think it would be wonderful to be WRONG about Chomsky. If you have any evidense that Chomsky supposts a state of Israel, please provide it.

Again, thank you for your kindness and patients. As a high school drop out who worked three jobs while in college, a black school, my major was fine arts, and culinary arts, not English, not history, not political science. I am NO expert on any of these issue and do not pretend to be. My spelling is shameful and spellcheck doesn't work for dyslexia. .

That sounds self refuting.

Re: "I am not claiming that MY opinion is correct, "

That sounds self refuting. If you did not believe it was correct, then it would not be your opinion. Having an opinion entails that you believe something is correct. And making an assertion based on what you believe to be correct seems to entail that you are asserting that it is correct. Perhaps you mean to say that you don't know it with certainty, but that it is your hunch and you think it is 'probably' correct? If that is the case, you should at least include the caveat in the original post that it's your unsupported opinion, rather than potentially misrepresent someone.

Re: "I offered the wiki link to Chomsky as a reference to his religion, because I found no other source that mentioned his religion, and if you have one, please provide it."

His religion is irrelevant. The fact that someone is an atheist does not entail that they want to change society or remove religion from society. It's notable that Chomsky seemed to approve of the religious efforts of followers of liberation theology according to the wikipedia article you posted about him.

Re:"Perhaps you KNOW for a fact, exactly what Chomsky wants to happen?"

What I think about Chomsky is irrelevant. We are talking about reasons for your assertion.

Re: "What good is a Jewish State to an atheist, and I belive Chomsky refers himself as a libertarian socialist, for the worker class, besides a historical marker?"

Irrelevant question. The fact that something might be of no use to someone doesn't entail that they want to get rid of it or that they want to get rid of an attribute of it. You seem to be saying that since you believe Chomsky has no use for a Jewish state, that he "wants to get rid of western religion in order to make Government God". You would probably consider religion an attribute of a Jewish state. If I have no use for a cat, does that mean I want to kill it? Does it mean that I want to cut off all tails from all animals? Do you see the flaw? Your assertion that "getting rid of religion would make government God" is also something I'm not sure how you came to believe, in fact I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "make government God".

Re: "Why would Chomsky support a Jewish state? To me he does not in any way ,shape or form. Perhaps you can educate me on that?"

Irrelevant question. Whether or not Chomsky wants to support a Jewish state doesn't entail that he wants to get rid of it or religion. I don't support cats, I don't even like cats, but I don't want to kill them or cut off tails of different animals.

Re: "I'm apologizing to you, because I'm not understanding what you are contributing to the debate, except that the reasons I am asserting, you do not see as reason."

I'm not trying to contribute anything to a debate, I'm not debating. I don't really have any point to make other than I am waiting for you to provide how you came to your conclusion.
I'm simply saying: if you make a claim, back it up. And you haven't backed it up yet. If your claim has nothing to back it up, why mention it?

Re: "I have come into this debate as a student, not a teacher, not an expert (am I repeating myself?)"

But when you are making assertions, the onus is on you to back them up.

Re: "Chomsky, from everything I have seen so far is an athesit libertarian-socialist, and PLEASE, if you have something, anything to say otherwise please provide it."

Again. I'm not arguing with you on those points(even though I think even wikipedia doesn't paint him as a mere libertarian-socialist. It seems to mention another political persuasion as well). I'm accepting your points for sake of argument, they just don't seem to have a direct connection to your claim about his personal desires for society.

Re: "Why would Chomsky support a Jewist State? I don't know. I can find anthing that claims Chomsky supports Israel, and so far, everything I have read is that Chomsky does not support Israel."

Again, irrelevant for reasons already mentioned

Re: "I think it would be wonderful to be WRONG about Chomsky. If you have any evidense that Chomsky supposts a state of Israel, please provide it."

I'm not saying that he supports a state of Israel, I don't know his view on the matter. I don't see how that relates to how you say he "wants Israel and Western religion eliminated to establish government as "GOD"".

Not that this is relevant, but one thing I've heard professors say about Chomsky is that reading his stuff is like reading a brick wall. He uses complex sentences and complex ideas. It's easy to misinterpret him.

I am not making claims

I am expressing my opinion, and I have delievered to you, with apology KNOWING I CAN BE WRONG, what my OPINION of what I have from the Videos and links I have provided.

I am not saying. These are the undisputed FACTS on Chomsky.

I asm saying I don't KNOW for a FACT, this is what I think based on the VERY LITTLE I know and understand.

At this point, I'm spending more time defending my OPINION. You admit you have NO intention of entering the debate. I have admitted I am a student, not a teacher, not an expert. So I don't get you.

If you are interested in the subject, please continue. If all you are interested is in disputing my opinion, let's stop, because my opinion is just that. If you have a different opinion, share it. If not, why persist?

What's your issue?

Me?

I'm not all that, and am not claiming to be anything but a student, interested in this subject with an opinion I am willing to change being given information from those who disagree with my OPINION.

Pax

Re: "I am not making

Re: "I am not making claims...I am expressing my opinion, ... If all you are interested is in disputing my opinion, let's stop, because my opinion is just that. If you have a different opinion, share it. If not, why persist? What's your issue? Me??"

You stated that Chomsky has certain desires. Whether or not it is your opinion that he has those desires does not change the fact that it is a statement, a claim, an assertion. When you state something to be the case, you are making a claim. There is no way around it. Even if you don't believe what you have said, if you state that it is so, it is a claim. In the article, you didn't say that you were wondering, or had the feeling about it, but rather you bluntly stated/claimed/asserted that Chomsky wants to do certain things. If someone reads that, it sounds like you are trying to report something about Chomsky, and not merely expressing baseless hunches with no connection to evidence or reality. I really don't have anything against you personally. I'd like to think that if we knew each other we might even be friends. Have you ever had a friend hold you accountable to something you've said? I'm merely asking for an account of a somewhat disparaging claim about someone. Jesus taught that we should treat others how we'd like to be treated, and if someone was making disparaging claims about me based on hunches, I would want someone to hold them accountable to those claims rather than to let them misrepresent or slander me unchallenged. I really don't have much natural affinity towards Chomsky's politics or Atheism in general, but Jesus taught us to love everyone and I'm trying to do that. If someone is bearing false witness against their neighbor, the loving thing to do would be to stand up for your neighbor, as well as meekly point out the error to the one bearing false witness. I was offering you opportunity to back up your claims to let the evidence speak for itself, and suggested including a caveat if your claim is baseless. I only persist because as long as the claim stands in the article, it ought to be backed up.

I have a right to an opinion

right or wrong, backed up or not. I'm willing to be wrong for I am willing to make it right. Chomsky is the making maing claims. I am espressing an opinion.

As a Catholic, I hear claims against me and my faith based on opinions every day.

That does not change my FAITH in MY God LORD JESUS CHRIST, MY SAVIOUR, who WILL FORGIVE MY TRESSPASSES, even if you do not.

Peace be with you.