h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Noam Chomsky. that's a name I've not heard for a couple of years. He got a mention in my A-Level English Language course, along with the even more ridiculously named "Berko-Gleason's Wug Test". fantastic.

But, going back to Chomsky's interview- I agree with him.

i thought that his assertion that "The current incumbents in Washington are at an extreme of reactionary jingoism and contempt for democracy" echoes my own opinion of the Bush administration precisely.

i understand were you arecoming from but when it is a matter og lifr or death i would preffer to win. and if that meant killing another soldier that so be it'

But to be "killing another soldier" you must be in abattle situation. that's not what the bombing of Kabul was.

now, as I have said, I am severely anti-war, although i admit that sometimes it may be necesary. i just particularly dislike the fact that their are innocent casualties.

Chomsky is so full of himself.

Quite possibly, and I know his linguistic theories were shot to b*****y, but I think in the case of the interview Subcom linked to, his points were valid.

starbirth wrote, "Afganistan effectivly declared war on the United states and the world when it allowed terrorist safe haven under their protection.... The goverment was given ample time to stop this practice and evict these know terrorist."

When Bush began rattling his saber at them, the Taliban offered compromises, like extraditing terrorists to a Muslim country for trial. They were clearly willing to take steps to bring the terrorists to justice, not giving terrorists "safe haven." They were making the kinds of moves that are obvious to any buyer or seller in any street market as a *negotiation*. The Bush administration refused to negotiate. Apparently if you don't agree to the demands of George Bush within his time-frame, then you are "effectively declaring war" on his country.

Sounds like most of Europe's got it coming then.

"Chomsky is so full of himself."

Right. Just say he's "full of himself," and maybe no one will notice that you won't or can't refute the *content* of what he said.

Chomsky's "linguistic views were shot to b*****y"??? I dug around a little on Google and found a book titled "The Linguistics Wars," but I can't find something that will tell me whether there is a concensus among Linguists that Chomsky's theories are right or wrong. So far I've heard one person on h2g2 claim they were wrong, and he was an admittedly disgruntled former student of Chomsky's.

Is there someplace on the web where a large group of linguists agree he's wrong, or should I belive the other things I've read, that his theories in linguistics were so far-reaching, they've influenced the fields of psychology and sociology too?

To be honest with you, there's only one of Chomsky's theories that i know that much about, and it was pretty damn shot to b*****y.

Chomsky claimed that children's acquisition of language was based purely on imitation. they only repeated what they heard, they didn't pick up grammatical rules and suchlike.

Now my opinion, which is also the opinion of linguists including berko-Gleason (I could give you some more names if my A-Levl English file were not on the other side of the country) is that this is, quite frankly, rubbish.

Children pick up grammatical rules, as is shown when they apply them incorrectly- for example, if they say "childs" rather than "children" or "goed" instead of "went". if,as Chomsky claimed, the children were merely picking up the words their parents said, they would not make such elementary mistakes.

Berko-Gleason set up his Wug test in order to prove Chomsky wrong, and the etst was this- he showed a group of pre-school children a picture of a made-up bird and said to them "This is a Wug". He then showedthem a picture of two of them and said "These are two..." and all the children replied "Wugs". this basic test proved that they had learnt the rule of pluralisation, as they could not have heard the word "wugs" before.

Also, my LAC 171 (Language and Culture) lecturer last year that chomsky didn't know much about Linguistics, and should stick to sociology.

Unfortunately, i don't know any appropiate websites.

Although i must admit I know little of chomsky's other theories besides the one I mention there. they may all be magnificently insightful, and i may just have found out about the dud one.

I would like to apologise unreservadly for inadvertantly referring to jean berko-Gleason as male.

Question.

Why is it that when a terrorist attacks someone or something it is not considered a war? At what point is the line crossed?

Myself, I'm partial to the idea of calling something a war if people are going to die in the conflict. Particularly when my assailent has gone so far as to openly declare a holy-war against us.

But then, perhaps I'm missing something.

"Afganistan effectivly declared war on the United states and the world when it allowed terrorist safe haven under their protection. Under this protection camps were training terrorist how to kill not only americans but all who did not follow their doctrines"

In Ireland there was a power sharing scheme (which has recently been suspended). One of the parties (Sin Fein) is the political wing of the IRA, a terrorist organisation which has been killing people with bombs for years. If the UK followed the USA's line, could we be safe in assuming that Belfast would be bombed from the air and the civilian casualties dismissed as 'collatoral damage'?
After-all, there was a major party harbouring terrorists. So what's the difference? Surely it doesn't come down to them being white and speaking English, does it?

Talking of the IRA, let us all remember that the IRA has been bankrolled by USA for years and years. Remember Bushes speach, 'Anyone supporting, harbouring,...etc... terrorists is as bad as a terrorist themselves.'

Oh, shush, our cousins across the pond don't like to be reminded that NorAid ended up funding the same organization as Ghaddaffi.

Someone mentioned Timor a while back. A very relevant point as Australian business tactics that helped support the incumbent government were *very* unpopular with the Muslim far east.

Also, no one here yet seems to have picked up on the fact that many terrorists in indonesia were trained by General Suharto's military machine.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,812706,00.html

On the subject of the washington sniper, has a member of the NRA yet been on record to say that this person would be as dangerous with a pair of scissors? Hilariously (in an ironic way), Michael Moore is finding himself a casualty again as his new film @Bowling for Colombine' (stridently anti-guns) is felt to be innappropriate for the time, just as Stupid White Men was nearly binned in the wake of 9/11 for being anti-Bush.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,812572,00.html

"In Ireland there was a power sharing scheme (which has recently been suspended). One of the parties (Sin Fein) is the political wing of the IRA, a terrorist organisation which has been killing people with bombs for years."

Does anyone know what the current situation in the United States is re: Noraid and the other terrorist-supporting groups?

"If the UK followed the USA's line, could we be safe in assuming that Belfast would be bombed from the air and the civilian casualties dismissed as 'collatoral damage'?
After-all, there was a major party harbouring terrorists. So what's the difference? Surely it doesn't come down to them being white and speaking English, does it?"

Basically, you're falling into the old "ooh, look at the hypocrisy" argument. I don't like hypocrisy, the difference seems to be that I expect it. Read the history books, this sort of "say-one-thing-and-do-another" diplomacy has been with us since ancient times. You can't expect it to go away and no one will be surprised, least of all impressed, if you point it out. It goes with the territory.

As far as international relations goes, rather than listening to the pious rhetoric that inevitably comes from the leaders of world powers, it's better to look at how a situation, realistically, could be worked out and wondering if that's better for everyone and (more importantly) if the resultant situation has any sort of future. That's what I've been trying to argue in this thread. Expecting the great powers to get involved in a situation out of the goodness of their hearts is a waste of time. Look at any situation hard enough and you find hidden agendas and cynicism. Even well-intentioned leaders have to use these tactics to get what they want (which is why some believe President Roosevelt goaded the Japanese into attacking the USA, in order to engage a reluctant America into a European war).

That's a pretty cynical point of view you've got there Zagreb. I'm not going to contest it, although I might say that if enough people demanded an end to the hypocrisy that we do undoubtedly see in world politics, we might actually be able to change the way our leaders behave in such a way that the problems we currently face are diffused. But I accept that I am more of an idealist than a realist and it really just boils down to that at the end of the day I suppose.

I have a question that I was thinking of starting a new thread on, but I thought I'd test the water in this thread first.

The question is - What exactly do people think should be done when a terrorist act is committed against a country's citizens?
Bearing in mind that there are very few cases where the perpetartors are ever caught (I think we could all agree that bringing these people to justice would be the ideal situation). It just seems to me that there is very little that can be done when a group of people choose use terrorism to make a political point.

The American government has spent the last 13 months trying to catch and deal with the perpetrators of the attacks on the WTC - and where has it got them? Surely there must be other ways of trying to cope with this problem?

"Basically, you're falling into the old "ooh, look at the hypocrisy" argument."

No, merely making inquiries as to why bombing in retaliation to bombing is acceptable in one country and unacceptable in another. A question, if you like. To get people thinking and, god forbid, perhaps hear a sensible reply.

"Expecting the great powers to get involved in a situation out of the goodness of their hearts is a waste of time. Look at any situation hard enough and you find hidden agendas and cynicism."

to reply, using your own words;

"Read the history books, this sort of "say-one-thing-and-do-another" diplomacy has been with us since ancient times. You can't expect it to go away and no one will be surprised, least of all impressed, if you point it out."

Zagreb, you say the leaders are cynical, yet you are the one that frequently chants "There's nothing we can do, it's a sh*tty world - let these guys have their way, we can't stop them. And if we let them get their own way, well, things might improve"
You can't have it both ways mate. You're justifying your own cycnisism by suggested the world is a cynical place. That way you don't have to feel as if you're missing out on something, that it could, perhaps, be another way.

Starbirth: "Afganistan effectivly declared war on the United states" -- which part of Afghanistan: the one under Taliban control or the part under the control of the Northern Alliance.

"Under this protection.." -- the protection from the Taliban, the Northern Alliance or Pakistan?

"The goverment was given ample time to stop this practice and evict these know terrorist." -- Stop the Al Queda training camps or stop the Northern Alliance growing opium?

Others have already stated that the Taliban offered to hand over OBL to anyone other then the US.

"While I an saddened that innocent people {civilians} were killed I see no other choice than to have gone after those people." -- that's plain and simply hypocritical Starbirth.