+Glauco Fernando I do agree, but by the same token, I think Chomsky could go on forever if he didn't get cut off. Love hearing him talk, but also love a good debate.
I admire Noam Chomsky immensely and have read many of his books. However I’m glad to see the interviewer pushing back against him a bit. It brings out the best in Chomsky. Nothing worse than Chomsky interviews by fawning admirers who never challenge him.
Mehdi Hasan did a poor job of conducting this interview with Noam Chomsky. Mehdi was just playing the Gotcha Game with Noam Chomsky. Mehdi wasted an opportunity, because Noam Chomsky is a great teacher and his perspective is always on the money.
+Don L He's said many times that he's not a complete pacifist. He's always maintained that there are times when armed resistance is necessary, but they need to be carefully justified.
Mehdi Hasan is the Best......this is the reason why i read Chomsky materials in circumspect.......Even owing to his own definition he failed to acknowledge that Russia's annexation of Crimea is in fact "imperialism".......Crimea was gifted back to Ukraine in 1954 by Nikita Khrushchev......after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991...the "Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances" - which is a diplomatic memorandum was signed on December 1994 by Ukraine, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. In a nutshell; In the "Budapest Memorandum," Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States promised that none of them would ever threaten or use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.....that includes Crimea which is under the sovereignty of Ukraine. Thus, owing to Chomsky Russia's action in Crimea is indeed "imperialism"........he is indeed an intellect of the 21st century, but, one that is overtly bias....smh
+catcherbloc1 chomsky acknowledges that its a criminal act and it is wrong, But you cant understand the decision to annex Crimea without considering the total context of the situation. Putin did not just wake up one day and say, I want to annex Crimea. The taking of Crimea was done the context of the U.S and its allies expanding NATO (a hostile military alliance in the view of Russia) right its border in violation of promises Gorbachev. In that context, calling it imperialism is too simplistic. It does not mean the annexation was not criminal and immoral, it just means the situation too complex to call it imperialism.
+Russell Morgan Simply; attempting to blaming NATO expansion as the reason for Vladimir Putin illegal annexation of Crimea is also negating the existence of International laws and norms - which Putin actions violated. Howbeit, theories such as; Realism "John Mearsheimer" most notably will blame NATO's expansion and although it makes sense in the realm of Theories in International Relations once again it does not acknowledge the principles of International Laws and it is besides the point as it relates to Chomsky conceptualization of Imperialism. Nonetheless, my critic is against Chomsky amidst Russia's action by his definition is in fact "Imperialism" and attempting to include other factors is digressing from the point....For example, America's action in Iraq by Chomsky definition will be "imperialism", but, i can also take the position that there were other factors at play such as; grave Human Rights violation embolden the U.S. to militarily intervene on the grounds of "Humanitarian Intervention". In addition, the U.S. actions was in line with the United Nations principles that speaks too "Maintenance of Peace and Security" and they had to invade because Saddam Hussein was a clear threat to International Peace and Security (WMDS among reason).......my point is; call a "spade a spade"..........
No one doubts that Putin is in violation of international law. Its just important to understand the context of which those actions take place. Your right, by the very basic definition he gave in this short interview, the Russian annexation of Crimea is technically imperialism. But that does not even begin to to remotely approach imperialist actions perpetrated by the United States. Comparing Russia annexing a small piece of land that it has historical ties to in reaction to the world superpower expanding a hostile military alliance to its border to The United States launching a war or aggression against a weak defenseless country devastated by economic sanctions thousands of miles away from its borders is not an accurate comparison at all. Neither one of the actions are justified, but the latter is a much better example of imperialism than the former. .
+catcherbloc1 You fail because you take a situation with a fork and tear it out of the context. That way everything is possible. Russia had forces in Ukraine for years, legaly. They could have added up to, i think 20k. Next, the momment when the troops went out of the bases was when the legal system in Ukraine collapsed. Maidan was not only undemocratic, it was unconstitutional. Ukraine was in a state of emergency. Besides, the official and DEMOCRATICALY ELECTED president made an official request to the Russians, so that little formality is taken care of. You have no case there. Chomsky is old, he wants to stay focused. The only reason he skipped over that part is because it is complicated. You westerners are not used to things being complicated, that's why FOX news, BBC, CNN, DW, AJ and others can present every situation in a black and white. Also, if you want to talk about international law, you must remember that it is not selective. You can't go carpet bomb a village in Iraq and then say that someone else is braking international law. In this case, even if Russia did move out of the bases in Crimea out of the contract, what they did is jaywalking in comparison to what USA is doing on DAILY bases. When you start leading by example, then you can say who brakes international law. The part about imperialism is also easy when you use a fork in a way i described. Remember that nobody invaded Crimea from the outside. The local government of Crimea, which was an Authonimous Republic with a right to it's own parlament, VOTED to get the fck out of a mess that became Ukraine. It's a right to self-determination which was confirmed on a referendum. Now, let's say magicaly the referendum votes had 20% of fakes. Practicaly it's impossible to remain unnoticed and go over 4%, but for the sake of the argument let's say 20% was faked. What was the result of the referendum again? The vas majority still wanted to join Russia. Now think. If there was as much as 40% of the people who were completely opposed to it, there would be signs all over Crimea.There's not even one little problem as a result, because if there was you'd see western mass media blow it way out of proportion.
I think Mehdi did a decent job giving Chomsky time to talk, while going over all the points Chomsky has recently been raising in his recent writings within the allotted time. He does agree with Chomsky but brings these accusations / subject changes to cover more ground.
Actually, if you'd ever try to really listen to me and stop calling me an Islamaphobe and demonizing the New Atheist you MIGHT have noticed I SAY EXACTLY THE SAME THING CHOMSKY DOES. He's NOT a vocal atheist so he doesn't actively "criticize" religion.
As if 60 years was such a long time ago. Gimme a break!! Why can't the reporter be quiet, STOP interrupting - so we can actually hear what the guest star has to say. 🤨
Chomsky's (mostly) wrong about Ukraine, but he's right about the PKK. Mehdi's right in questioning the group's tactics in Turkey, where they've resorted to terrorist violence (this is a reaction to Erdogan's fascist policies, to be fair). But, in Iraq and Syria, the PKK affiliate YPG (People's Protection Units) are fighting for a democratic anarchist society worth supporting. Rojava, the YPG state in Northern Syria, not only fights as the front line against ISIS, but represents a model for a post-national, egalitarian society that could serve as a model for a future world society. It's a mistake to equate this group with the Kurds: though they come out of the Kurdish freedom movement, they are truly multi-ethnic and espouse a universal message.
Interviewer is hopeless maybe he should just tell us his opinion, instead of 'directing' an interview. He's clearly not interested in hearing Noam out.
Dawkins and definitely Hitchens are NOT Islama-phobes. I generally like AlJazeera for real news but this reporter is mistaken. Sam Harris's views I generally agree with but I do not know his views on this subject.
2:35 "You support the people who are saving the Yazidis, who happen to be on the US terrorist list. They [the PKK] are the ones who are primarily responsible for saving the Yazidis." 6:50: "They have carried out attacks on civilians. I am not saying we should give military aid to the PKK" Mr Chomsky's views are so well illuminated by that incoherence. In fact, his whole vision consists of an endless stream of such incoherence. He is a huckster of the first magnitude, whipping around irreconcilable moral absolutes to incite feelings of outrage in his audience.
I like Mehdi interviews, but he should let the guests finish their explanations... He interrupts them all the time.
He want to push his agenda too I guess
He should ask for more time. He has lots of questions and the guest need to give a proper answer. Kind difficult really.
+Glauco Fernando You're right in both your comments.
+Glauco Fernando It's because TV time is limited
+Glauco Fernando I do agree, but by the same token, I think Chomsky could go on forever if he didn't get cut off. Love hearing him talk, but also love a good debate.
I admire Noam Chomsky immensely and have read many of his books. However I’m glad to see the interviewer pushing back against him a bit. It brings out the best in Chomsky. Nothing worse than Chomsky interviews by fawning admirers who never challenge him.
True 💯
Please kindly recommend one of his book for me.✌🏿❤️
@@muhammedladarboe5775 Understanding power
This is what I suggest to read first.
Man slow down, let Noam speak!
***** you're not listening to him
I love how the interviewer immediately changed the subject when Noam said that Qatar was supporting Islamic Terrorism. WOAH can’t have that XDXDXD
Chomsky said Al Jazeera and Qatar were supporting Al-Qaeda and Al Nusra. Good Job.
Mehdi, let the man have his voice heard first. Damn
Mehdi Hasan did a poor job of conducting this interview with Noam Chomsky.
Mehdi was just playing the Gotcha Game with Noam Chomsky.
Mehdi wasted an opportunity, because Noam Chomsky is a great teacher and his perspective is always on the money.
Good. but Hasan didn't need to interrupt and badger the old guy so much in the second half of the interview here.
Truth and knowledge of history, that's why I love Noam Chomsky 🤗 ....and Mehdi can be annoying, but even in his age Noam can handle him👌✌
First in on a Chomsky video where he says he's not a complete passifist!!!!!
+Don L He's said many times that he's not a complete pacifist. He's always maintained that there are times when armed resistance is necessary, but they need to be carefully justified.
He has said it before. But Gandhi would disagree
Excellent!
This Noam interview was so good for Al Jazeera that they allowed Chomsky to say that Qatar is supporting al-Qaeda (Nusra Front)
Mehdi Hasan is the Best......this is the reason why i read Chomsky materials in circumspect.......Even owing to his own definition he failed to acknowledge that Russia's annexation of Crimea is in fact "imperialism".......Crimea was gifted back to Ukraine in 1954 by Nikita Khrushchev......after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991...the "Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances" - which is a diplomatic memorandum was signed on December 1994 by Ukraine, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. In a nutshell; In the "Budapest Memorandum," Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States promised that none of them would ever threaten or use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.....that includes Crimea which is under the sovereignty of Ukraine. Thus, owing to Chomsky Russia's action in Crimea is indeed "imperialism"........he is indeed an intellect of the 21st century, but, one that is overtly bias....smh
+catcherbloc1 chomsky acknowledges that its a criminal act and it is wrong, But you cant understand the decision to annex Crimea without considering the total context of the situation. Putin did not just wake up one day and say, I want to annex Crimea. The taking of Crimea was done the context of the U.S and its allies expanding NATO (a hostile military alliance in the view of Russia) right its border in violation of promises Gorbachev.
In that context, calling it imperialism is too simplistic. It does not mean the annexation was not criminal and immoral, it just means the situation too complex to call it imperialism.
+Russell Morgan Simply; attempting to blaming NATO expansion as the reason for Vladimir Putin illegal annexation of Crimea is also negating the existence of International laws and norms - which Putin actions violated. Howbeit, theories such as; Realism "John Mearsheimer" most notably will blame NATO's expansion and although it makes sense in the realm of Theories in International Relations once again it does not acknowledge the principles of International Laws and it is besides the point as it relates to Chomsky conceptualization of Imperialism. Nonetheless, my critic is against Chomsky amidst Russia's action by his definition is in fact "Imperialism" and attempting to include other factors is digressing from the point....For example, America's action in Iraq by Chomsky definition will be "imperialism", but, i can also take the position that there were other factors at play such as; grave Human Rights violation embolden the U.S. to militarily intervene on the grounds of "Humanitarian Intervention". In addition, the U.S. actions was in line with the United Nations principles that speaks too "Maintenance of Peace and Security" and they had to invade because Saddam Hussein was a clear threat to International Peace and Security (WMDS among reason).......my point is; call a "spade a spade"..........
No one doubts that Putin is in violation of international law. Its just important to understand the context of which those actions take place.
Your right, by the very basic definition he gave in this short interview, the Russian annexation of Crimea is technically imperialism. But that does not even begin to to remotely approach imperialist actions perpetrated by the United States.
Comparing Russia annexing a small piece of land that it has historical ties to in reaction to the world superpower expanding a hostile military alliance to its border to The United States launching a war or aggression against a weak defenseless country devastated by economic sanctions thousands of miles away from its borders is not an accurate comparison at all.
Neither one of the actions are justified, but the latter is a much better example of imperialism than the former.
.
+Russell Morgan Point taken
+catcherbloc1
You fail because you take a situation with a fork and tear it out of the context. That way everything is possible.
Russia had forces in Ukraine for years, legaly. They could have added up to, i think 20k.
Next, the momment when the troops went out of the bases was when the legal system in Ukraine collapsed. Maidan was not only undemocratic, it was unconstitutional. Ukraine was in a state of emergency. Besides, the official and DEMOCRATICALY ELECTED president made an official request to the Russians, so that little formality is taken care of. You have no case there.
Chomsky is old, he wants to stay focused. The only reason he skipped over that part is because it is complicated. You westerners are not used to things being complicated, that's why FOX news, BBC, CNN, DW, AJ and others can present every situation in a black and white.
Also, if you want to talk about international law, you must remember that it is not selective. You can't go carpet bomb a village in Iraq and then say that someone else is braking international law. In this case, even if Russia did move out of the bases in Crimea out of the contract, what they did is jaywalking in comparison to what USA is doing on DAILY bases. When you start leading by example, then you can say who brakes international law.
The part about imperialism is also easy when you use a fork in a way i described. Remember that nobody invaded Crimea from the outside. The local government of Crimea, which was an Authonimous Republic with a right to it's own parlament, VOTED to get the fck out of a mess that became Ukraine. It's a right to self-determination which was confirmed on a referendum.
Now, let's say magicaly the referendum votes had 20% of fakes. Practicaly it's impossible to remain unnoticed and go over 4%, but for the sake of the argument let's say 20% was faked. What was the result of the referendum again? The vas majority still wanted to join Russia.
Now think. If there was as much as 40% of the people who were completely opposed to it, there would be signs all over Crimea.There's not even one little problem as a result, because if there was you'd see western mass media blow it way out of proportion.
well said Mehedi Hasan
I think Mehdi did a decent job giving Chomsky time to talk, while going over all the points Chomsky has recently been raising in his recent writings within the allotted time. He does agree with Chomsky but brings these accusations / subject changes to cover more ground.
The interviewer is being lectured on basics .. he should really do his homework before sitting down with Prof. Chomsky.
not really
The fact that he described Russian support of *its ally* Syria a Impertialist act shows that he has no awareness of what the term means.
***** By "he" i was refering to the interviewer.
Love Noam. high quality video
The British have this style of saying 'So what you are saying is' which is nothing to do with what they are saying. I cannot abide it
Actually, if you'd ever try to really listen to me and stop calling me an Islamaphobe and demonizing the New Atheist you MIGHT have noticed I SAY EXACTLY THE SAME THING CHOMSKY DOES. He's NOT a vocal atheist so he doesn't actively "criticize" religion.
Yeah man...let the guy get through one answer before asking 3 more questions
As if 60 years was such a long time ago. Gimme a break!!
Why can't the reporter be quiet, STOP interrupting - so we can actually hear what the guest star has to say. 🤨
Someone should ask him, if current russian actions can be classified as imperialism
I can't wait to hear what excuses he'll give this time
Mehedi Hasan, it's ok to challenge, but don't be rude at interrupting.
Is Syria also a pluralistic country? What if 60% of Syrians condoned a Turkish annexation as a tradeoff for safety?
The interviewer thinks he knows everything and doesnt stop his big mouth interrupting Noam. What a joke
Let Chomsky talk. Christ.
let Pf.Chomsky soeak for god sake
Chomsky's (mostly) wrong about Ukraine, but he's right about the PKK. Mehdi's right in questioning the group's tactics in Turkey, where they've resorted to terrorist violence (this is a reaction to Erdogan's fascist policies, to be fair). But, in Iraq and Syria, the PKK affiliate YPG (People's Protection Units) are fighting for a democratic anarchist society worth supporting. Rojava, the YPG state in Northern Syria, not only fights as the front line against ISIS, but represents a model for a post-national, egalitarian society that could serve as a model for a future world society. It's a mistake to equate this group with the Kurds: though they come out of the Kurdish freedom movement, they are truly multi-ethnic and espouse a universal message.
pkk came out of turkish terrorists against kurdish nation
Things like these are the reason why I don't watch Al Jazeera. WHEN YOU ASK A QUESTION LET THE MAN ANSWER IT!
He is such a Putin apologist.
While the interviewer asks some interesting questions, I feel like he interrupts noam wayy too much. Let the man speak!!
+Marcel y agree, he was climbing down his throat
Interviewer is hopeless maybe he should just tell us his opinion, instead of 'directing' an interview. He's clearly not interested in hearing Noam out.
He interrupts them to show off as if he’s of the same weight as someone like Chomsky!!!
Noam Chomsky is my boyfriend.
You have the greatest living mind for an interview and you choose to squabble over semantics....pretty poor form
Dawkins and definitely Hitchens are NOT Islama-phobes. I generally like AlJazeera for real news but this reporter is mistaken. Sam Harris's views I generally agree with but I do not know his views on this subject.
2:35 "You support the people who are saving the Yazidis, who happen to be on the US terrorist list. They [the PKK] are the ones who are primarily responsible for saving the Yazidis."
6:50: "They have carried out attacks on civilians. I am not saying we should give military aid to the PKK"
Mr Chomsky's views are so well illuminated by that incoherence. In fact, his whole vision consists of an endless stream of such incoherence. He is a huckster of the first magnitude, whipping around irreconcilable moral absolutes to incite feelings of outrage in his audience.
That's as far as the knowledge of an American goes. Sad. And he is supposed to be the best of US
One fool taking to another fool
Too long.
Later.
Interviewer lol, Chomsky is like 100000x smarter than you, let him talk
question.? interview PUTIN.!!!