Noam Chomsky's Take on "American Sniper" 

That was their nature though.

Universal Martial Arts Center Well, you're full of shit. Look up the history of the conquest of the Americas and you'll see the colonists were the actual aggressors.

Universal Martial Arts Center Your original comment was loaded. Europeans were at least as "savage" and did everything you attribute to Native Americans. I love how you resort to the "your kind" bullshit so early. Makes me think you're just another brain dead right-wing troll. p.s. I checked your play lists. You have quit a bit from that smug piece of dead head shit Paul Joseph Watson. So, yeah, right-wing troll confirmed.

This was my original comment down to the last letter "That was their nature though" how is that loaded? Nothing there implies anything about anyone else other than them. Your stupidity showing. You were implying that it wasn't but it most likely was. And lol AGAIN your stupidity shows. Thinking that because you're some leftist you have an automatic step in intelligence above your opposition when clearly you're no different than the right whatsoever. Enjoy being stuck in your puppet show politics cretin.

Universal Martial Arts Center Well, better than watching Hitler speeches about Jews. Oh, you thought I didn't check that one? Starting to regret putting those video lists together?

Then you're government shouldn't have invaded Kurdistan, Harbour international war criminals, and committed genocide against its own people.

+Galco ManWolf The USA welcomed the genocidal Nazis, quasi exterminated the native populations, enslaved the blacks, and most USA presidents qualify for the title of war criminals.

Galco ManWolf The borders of modern Arab countries were drawn by the British and French empires.

+Deaglan Cullen and now the caliphate wants to redraw them again

+Mandingo Brown correct me if I'm wrong but I believe according to the Geneva Convention that there are four instances in which country has reneged on its sovereignty the first one is genocide Saddam Hussein committed genocide against the neighbouring country Kurdistan and the second one is that he Harbour international war criminals the third one is repeated aggression against neighbouring countries

thank you for posting this !

The correct pejorative term for a Brit is "limey" not "lime".

No problemo big guy

Was it mate? Or was it Bravo Two Zero recast with American heroes word for word? Remarkable how these little goat herding boys (be they Iraqi or Afghani) KEEP bringing down Special Forces units 20 years on by leveraging their moral integrity.

+SPARTANLIFECOACH To be fair Zero Dark Thirty (at least for me) wasn't a pro-war movie per say. It's actually quite neutral on the issues as far as I saw.

Not to faux news.

@Worm Driver i hope there is at least bottomless dispair and contempt in your voice when you say that. I really do. But i don't dare ask

And war criminal. The man took pleasure in his job, which was to snipe people.

must be somewhat symptomatic

@mark d so was Ventura he was never in combat and was a udt not a seal

excellent observations!👍

Or just turn captions on

Thanks from all non native speakers

Wow--thanks!

I'm sorry, but the "Obama was the worst of all" arguments are complete crap, and this one is no exception. For starters, you weren't present in the Oval Office for any of the meetings you talk about here, so even if we allow that the regular meetings took place and targets were selected, we can't examine the reasoning behind each strike, nor do we know how often they were ordered. The idea that Obama, who inherited Bush's wars, had a conciliatory approach to diplomacy, and opposed unnecessary military action, was in this one respect a hawkish fiend/terrorist is ridiculous. Bush Sr. and Jr. together killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians while pursuing made up wars, along with hundreds of thousands of soldiers drafted to fight against them as invaders. The shadow foreign policy of Reagan killed hundreds of thousands of Central American civilians, and his anti-Soviet Afghanistan venture propped up Osama bin Laden and planted the seeds for 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan. But you want to talk about Obama, who ordered some drone strikes to kill active terrorists, as if he could possibly be the worst of all--give me a f***ing break! You've obviously got a right-wing axe to grind, unlike Chomsky, who sees all US presidential administrations as equally immoral and dangerous.

Agreed....thanks for the input. Forum Network is always working on new partnerships in new venues not necessarily wired for shooting video, and we travel pretty light. We've already had a talk with these guys about improving the audio quality for the next shoot...but we are glad to have your comment to back up our argument for keeping the bar high.

WGBHForum Bahahahaha! I am entertained.

***** You're a substance yourself.

Those who are unnecessarily abusive in the comment section make me think of an altogether different substance.

***** but not a Zionist .

Or no ethics at all.

Like who? It seems to me like the opposite; For example: in the past Patton was glorified, while now there’s a more critical view on him (he once said America should’ve invade the USSR rather than/after Germany; he was antisemite...)

Right , we glorify people that help destroy murderous regimes. Maybe sit this one out you pathetic putz

k4nc3r I was thinking just the opposite

Puke me a fucking river.

People like JJ G and Plainlogic are pretty ignorant. They are the problem with America.

@@Beery1962 Its who and what america is. sociopathic.

Gore Vidal was much more a creature of the establishment than Chomsky, but compared to the toadying "progressive" liberals of today, most of whom are too timid to criticize American empire in any meaningful way, he comes off relatively radical.

Quite true. (If it ever had any, that is.)

Henry Kissinger won a Nobel peace prize in 1973, before Obama. Kissinger was National Security Advisor for Nixon, who authorised the CIA to prevent the democratically elected Chilean president Allende from assuming power. Allende was killed in 1973 during the military coup Augusto Pinochet executed with support from the CIA. Kissinger also supported the genocidal West Pakistan government during the Bangladeshi Liberation War in 1971. Estimated 300,000 to 3,000,000 Bangladeshis killed and 200,000 to 400,000 women raped.

I've always believed the Prize was awarded to the American people for electing him. Obama should have realized that and accepted on the nation's behalf and not his own.

Gorbachev also won the Nobel peace prize after he betrayed his country int he cold war. The prize is a sign that you did something to help imperialism on its way to world domination.

Obama did win it before he earned it, but he did earn it. The Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act earned it on its own, but also his diplomacy with Cuba and of course the Iran deal that Trump recently shat all over. So Obama did end up at least being worthy of consideration for the prize, but yes, he got it before he should have. I might google why they gave it to him. Might open my eyes a bit. Or I could just pretend I already know... Hmmm...

You think that shows courage? That shows only desperacy.

That doesn't show desperacy it shows inhumanity. I don't care how abused I am, I could be stuffed in a concentration camp or abducted by ISIS, I would get gassed or beheaded before I blow up my child up to save myself. I wouldn't dare put an explosive in my child's hand to blow up Nazis, I would just get gassed. Signifidelica, you are an absolute ingrate to declare that the sociopath is Kyle as opposed to that mother. But hey, what more do you expect from someone who prays to a pedophile and a war criminal 5 times a day. Obviously a woman who accepts a terrorist as a prophet is going to behave barbarically.

Why dont you join her then ;D? Serioulsy, yall who disrespect the american army are completyl welcomed to go to the middle east

​@@martinjugolin2087 the American army is nothing but cowards and war criminals.

@@martinjugolin2087 I will disrespect the military industrial complex thats for sure as for individual soldiers I guess it depends but a LOT of them deserve to be disrespected

@ClandestineOstrich Spot on! It's all about creating billionaires now....no one goes to college to become "educated and well rounded and erudite" It's about becoming the next Bezos or Gates or you name the billionaire.....that's out culture now...

i don't hate you for holding him in high regard, i just have contempt for you.

Don't forget Seymour hersh, John Pilger. The great truth teller will soon be gone through old age & there's few if any to replace them

@@plasticweaponPlease enumerate your passion

I dont think he's a hero. I mean, I believed he still had some good in him, because he was trying to help vets adjust. The biggest issue is the US trains/conditions these men to be killers. Then when it's all said and done, they're expected to adjust on their own. It why when we focus on this struggle, we need point out the powers at play who persuade us. The film doesn't do that. It sanitizes the situation, rather then going all in. But Hollywood's cowardice to both realistic violence, cynical views, and trying not to to piss off certain audiences can't afford to make films like Come and See. It's too much of a risk.

He did kill a lot of people that were trying to kill "ordinary soldiers". I'm sure they didn't mind the callousness of those actions. Saving comrade lives matters in war no matter what side you're on.

@@re1010 >>I mean, I believed he still had some good in him, because he was trying to help vets adjust.

@@CrniWuk exactly what I'm saying. He is sanitized because they fail to live out the ngative stuff about him, and it sanitize the situation by not showing the various reasons how this came to be.

Ordinary soldiers for the USA are trash and its funny when they can't return home.

If you notice a lot of his videos have bad audio it's done on purpose.

Nice. Real Nice. I saw what you did there. : )

Haha

Ed gein? The guy who made a dress out oh his victim's skins?

You should look up why alfred nobel created the peace prize. Its always been a joke.

........ur a worm

That's a fun a fictional story you've told. You've never done that in real life.

They'll make the argument in red dawn the wolverines fought an authoritarian government which is also what they saw in Iraq

Killing communists is good - killing Americans is not. If any part if that is unclear to you then you are likely a traitor aka a liberal. The cancer that weakens and kills the body politic.

Most conservatives i know are anti interventionist. Most Americans I know are against interventionism. Your complaining about "conservatives" as if they are not far more intellectually diverse than left wing oikophobes shows that you're more interested in demonizing people than taking to them. Mind your shitty bigotry, fool.

Milius was basically a soft anarcho-fascist. One of the issues I have with Taylor Sheridans stuff is how it basically does the same thing but subtler

It was discussed until the presidential election in 2008. Then for some weird reason most people in the mainstream stopped talking about it even though it intensified.

I think one reason its not discussed much is because a democrat is in the white house and its essentially something controlled by the executive branch. The Republicans have never met a form of making war that they don't like so they won't protest. And a lot of liberals don't look at it as critically as if it were being done by a Republican.

+Caleb Block Yeah i wonder the same thing. I have watched many many dozens of videos with him on many channels. Audio is poor, sometimes really bad even in quite new videos from year 2010+. One of the possible answer is that it is a intentional effect just to suppress the info he is talking about. He is talking the truth. The truth is the enemy of the government. Tentacles of CIA and NSA are reaching far and wide. RU-vid is obviously in their reach.

Probably more to do with amateurs and media outlets with very little funding speaking with him. Personally I haven't had any issue listening to his speeches on youtube.

a clear sign from God

His powerful aura damages the recording equipment

@@22kataking you mean the state?

It is just psychological deflection. They know that it is not. It is just a way of deflecting the evidence of Hollywood's propagandistic nature.

Woke thats the new word Woke woke woke Everything’s woke As if that means anything

Inglorious Basterds is just more Hollywood small hat propaganda.

@@DontDrinkthatstuff What was propagandistic about Inglorious Basterds?

​@@wagilini9723he's probably upset because he's anti anti nazi if you know what I mean

I wont judge soldiers by the heat of battle. I judge them by what turned them to a soldier: civilian life.

Sure..kyle cared so much about the Iraqi people 🥱🥱

The problem is, Kyle was not silent about his Chstianity. And there's nothing wrong with that, we all have our reasons. But Kyle pretty much was the American that ISIS feared: a proud Christian who came here "save" them. He believed their religion was savage and even had references to the crusades tattooed on him. It becomes extremely disconcerting when a man is trying to be the modern Crusade, which were campaigns of state terrorism and extermination based on Christianity superiority, and then it's brushed under the rug. Not all US soldiers are like this, but we probably shouldnt sanitize it. If you want a better version, chose someone else.

That's amazing! 🤯

+Mirandorl Vote for Bernie.

+wildreams You damn right! But i can't vote since i'm not american...

+Xavier LordofDarkness You want to vote in US elections while many americans don't even meet their own responsibilities. Voting is mandatory here in Brazil, i can't see how a democracy is supposed to function if people don't participate and are living in a world of propaganda and diversion.

Get involved with Our Revolution movement by Bernie Sanders. Be informed, and be ready to vote again next election cycle, make sure to get the proper documentation sorted out for the primaries as well so we don't get fucked over by the establishment DNC again. Also vote for your state's senators and congressmen.

Jay Paul Name someone better.

Brilliant man a must listen

more like an overrated hippy who is out of touch with reality.

Wut, Ethiopian atheist?

Because he has been saying the same old thing for decades....the US is a terrible, overbearing country....isn't it awful, isn't it awful. Give it a rest, Prof. Chomsky.

Hi Brian, I have been following Chomsky for about twenty years. I have never heard him say the things you mention here. Would you be kind enough to provide references? Mass murderers like Ronald Reagan and George Bush and Barack Obama keep saying the same old thing for decades, yet WGBH covers them on a regular basis. The Arthur cartoon and many WGBH news shows also say the same kinds of things over and over; of course, Chomsky is telling the truth, while many WGBH guests are lying. Repetitiveness, therefore, cannot be the relevant criterion. What is your theory, then, as to why these people, who repeat themselves and others constantly, are invited day after day, and year after year onto WGBH?

Yechiel Gordon Mr Gordon, I am curious as to why you think Reagan, Bush and Obama are mass murderers. One quote that I will paraphrase from Prof. Chomsky is that Reagan virtually destroyed Central America. Really? That is a gross exageration to say the least. Prof. Chomsky seems to be opposed to any US involvement outside it's borders. He started with Vietnam and moved on from there. The only conflict that I have not seen him comment on was the US/UN involvement in Bosnia. He may have made some comments, but I have not seen them.

Brian, I think a better question would be: How could one not regard Reagan, Bush and Obama as mass murderers? We know that the Reagan Administration supported and aided the death squad governments of El Salvador, and Guatemala and overall killed about 500,000 people in Central America. Reagan armed the terrorist Contras. Reagan helped create the Taliban, as well. Reagan worked closely with the apartheid regime in South Africa, providing it with whatever support he could. A full listing of his crimes would require volumes. For an introduction, see Chomsky and Herman: The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism George Bush's most notable war crime is, of course, the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Prior to this crowning crime, Bush completed what the Clinton Administration had started by starving Iraq: The bipartisan embargo starved about 850,000 children to death. Because the US does not allow proper body counts of its victims, we do not know the exact numbers; with regard to the invasion of Iraq; best estimates have more than a million people dying as a result.Bush's crimes extend, of course, well beyond this single crime. Nazis were hung at Nuremberg for less. As for Barack Obama, we have a man who carried out a bombing the day he received the Nobel Peace Prize. (See Jeremy Schahill for that story.) Obama continues to utilize drone strikes that kill civilians on a regular basis. Obama has so far bombed Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq and Syria. See CNN: Countries Bombed by the US Under the Obama Administration, September 23, 2014. Where Bush kidnapped people he didn't like, Obama simply has them assassinated. This, of course, is a violation of international law. Obama orders such summary executions or assassinations on a regular basis. He therefore qualifies as a murderer here, as well. You are correct that Chomsky does oppose US violation of international law and terror operations outside its borders.He opposed the American invasion of Vietnam, the American invasion of Cambodia, the US invasion of Laos, and the many US invasions and bombing of sovereign nations since then. By the way, and with perfect consistency, Chomsky wrote and commented extensively on Bosnia, as well. I reproduce for you a small portion of one interview with Democracy Now below: DM : Now, Amnesty International, among others, reported that "NATO committed serious violations of the rules of war during it's campaign", numerous human rights groups concur and document various war crimes. One of them had its anniversary two days ago, when the Radio Television Serbia was bombed, the national television, its headquarters, killing 16 people. First of all, why were these crimes completely unreported, and secondly, is there any prospects for there being any responsibility taken for these crimes? NC: I'd say the crimes were reported but they were cheered. It's not that they were unknown, like the bombing of the radio station, yes, it was reported and the TV station, but it's fine. Because the TV station was described as a propaganda outlet, so therefore it was right to bomb. That happens all the time. It just happened last year, in November 2004. One of the worst war crimes in Iraq... DM: Al Jazeera ... NC: ... was invasion of Falluja. Al Jazeera's one thing, but there was worse. The invasion of Falluja was kind of similar to Srebrenica, if you look, but ... They invaded Falluja; the first thing the invading troops did, U.S. troops, was to take over the general hospital and throw the patients on the floor, they were taken out their beds, put on the floor, hands tied on their backs, doctors thrown on the floor, hands on their backs, it was a picture of it in the front page of the The New York Times, they said it was wonderful. DM: The Geneva Convention forbids hospitals to be... NC: It's a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions and George Bush should be facing the death penalty for that, even under the U.S. law. But it was presented, no mention of the Geneva Conventions, and it was presented as a wonderful thing, because the Falluja general hospital was a "propaganda center," namely it was releasing casualty figures, so therefore it was correct to carry out a massive war crime. Well, the bombing of the TV station was presented the same way. In fact, as I'm sure you recall, there was an offer from NATO that they would not bomb if they agreed to broadcast six hours of NATO propaganda. Well, this is considered quite right.

Yechiel Gordon Mr Gordon, You have made some very good points. Would it be safe to say that Prof. Chomsky is an isolationist? He prefers the fight to come to his shores? It is better to fight the enemy or the perceived enemy on his shores rather than yours? As we all know, world history is rife with nations conquering nations, peoples conquering peoples. Wars involve killing people, it is a blunt fact. War is war and the describing of the deaths as war crimes is just a matter of unpleasant semantics. Boiled down to the simple facts, war criminals are on the losing side and war heroes are on the winning side. My problem with Prof. Chomsky is that his mind seems firmly ensconced in some sort of human utopia that doesn't exist nor will it ever.

A better anti war movie, would feature an iraqi doomed to die fighting impossible odds just to save a patch of earth held by his family by generations. 4 years later.... A better anti war movie would be about the last 5 or more US Presidents and how identical they all are when it comes to maintaining the US Empire

love your username

Whats up chris. Me and sean are at holiday inn. Call us 619-715-7291

LOL!!!!!!!1

Wikipedia says he claims 37. 668 would put him ahead of even the great Russian and Finnish snipers of WW2, who were literally the deadliest snipers in history. There's literally no way he could have anywhere near that many. The "Iraq War" was hardly a war in comparison to WW2. Even if he was literally 10x better than any other sniper in history (which is isn't) he simply wouldn't have had the combat exposure to kill that many people. Soldiers fighting inn Iraq might on occasion find themselves in a firefight with a few dozen others. During WW2 on the Eastern front, however, there would literally be millions of soldiers converging on a single city for months on end. The scale was completely different.

He is a wankers.

I don't think he was implying hatred with that example but more the sniper's wish to embody the aptitude of the nazi soldiers

Eric East I've been to several Buddhist monasteries in the Himalayas and I've never seen a swastika.

dude. 2.bp.blogspot.com/-nWbtLulubWI/U6D7yInsmYI/AAAAAAAAEpo/VI-fTcRPL10/s1600/6.jpg It's literally the SS logo. To compare it to buddhists who had the swastika waaay before the nazis, *that's* unfair Here's a bit of writing on why it's problematic: historyandcurrentcontext.blogspot.com/2012/02/ss-logo-used-by-marine-corps-scout.html

just like you dont actually have to eat a turd to know it isnt going to taste very good

And the personal testimony of the sniper himself

+Tahuan Tinsuyo I hope the Flying Spaghetti Monster makes him a holy meatball one day.

Timo Manunen Imbecile.

+Tahuan Tinsuyo To declare him a saint Chomsky would have to perform a miracle which by definition is the suspension of natural laws. Also it would seem that the Catholic church considers Jesus to be the last jew to perform miracles. So yeah, I'm the imbecile. Have a nice day!

Timo Manunen Thank you for your honesty.

+Tahuan Tinsuyo And I appreciate your sentiment towards Chomsky. We kept this civilized!

He didn't talk about his opinion of the movie , he spoke about reviews he had seen from different sources and spoke about the recorded memoirs by Chris Kyle directly, surely what the man wrote down is more important than what was in the movie, and from his own words he loved killing the savages , it doesn't take a genius to realise that this is not a full representation of him in the movie, Hell in the trailer for the movie it makes out as if he is some humanitarian that was torn up about what he was doing

conor smith "surely what the man wrote down is more important than what was in the movie" If we're talking about the movie, then no, that has zero relevance at all. This wasn't a documentary, it was a drama. Think of it this way: it was not presented as being as accurate to true events as _reality TV_ is. Really think about that. I am staring at all of these comments in utter astonishment. Clint Eastwood is a brilliant filmmaker who made a compelling story steeped in moral ambiguity without hitting you over the head with it. Personally I would consider this required viewing for any film buff as a prime example of how to make a compelling _protagonist_ who isn't necessarily a _hero._ You are effectively encouraged to empathize with a character that you might genuinely still not approve of - even disregarding whoever it was based on - which is exactly what a movie like this ought to do. Unfortunately people are just going to see what they want to see, or worse: judge something they didn't bother to see. The worst part of this film is that people had to know it was based on a real person at all so that they could bring all their biases with them to their decisions of whether to see the film and how to interpret it. If only it could have been passed off as a total fiction, I think a large portion of the Left would have seen and loved the film. In general, anyone who watches any big-budget movie based on real people or events expecting it to be accurate in any way more than broad strokes is an idiot. The film is more of an examination than a statement, and if there's any clear message, that message is about the toll that war takes on human lives. I think any liberties Eastwood took with Kyle's character were done to make it a genuinely superior film, and I have difficulty finding fault with him for that.

that's because the movie is a whitewash of this guy's life. THAT IS PROPAGANDA. And your comment shows that it works perfectly. You're obviously a sucker for it.

doublestrokeroll Hahaha oh no! Im just a brainwashed sheeple! Please enlighten me and bring me out of the darkness! Of course they've white washed it, its a movie for gods sake, they need to make money, if they showed the horrors of war how they really were, people would be either traumatised by it or wouldn't come to see it at all, my argument is, is against people saying the film glorified him and unquestionably backed the war in Iraq when it clearly didn't, from what I saw it portrayed war as a god awful mess that ruins the lives of everyone it doesn't kill, now if thats propaganda then who is it serving?

doublestrokeroll Yeah my opinion of him doesn't matter anyway. I could think he was the second coming of Jesus and I don't see how that would have an impact on anyone's life since the dude's dead now anyway. It's not like I can vote him into office or something.

+john smith ... Probably, considering he's 85+ years old. I think you've missed the point. The ability to make decisions on a battlefield doesn't qualify someone as having good moral judgment. Oftentimes, the person on the battlefield is there because they work for people who have no moral judgment.

Na Al: Absolutely brilliant.

guydreamr Brilliant? It doesn't take much to impress you apparently. I'm not arguing about Noam Chomsky's moral judgement - he's probably a good man. I've never met him but he seems like he tries to think and behave ethically. I'm just saying that the world isn't black and white. It's black, white, and every shade of grey in between. These ideas look wonderful on the page - but in practically they only work on old episodes of Star Trek - and even there they seems corny. The Greeks were great thinkers and artist but their society was crushed by barbarians. It's easy to sit behind a desk and bitch about the military. It doesn't necessarily mean you are smarter and correct simply because you claim the moral high ground. It's almost a sense of religious moral entitlement - without the religion. Morality doesn't equal good judgement necessarily.

+john smith Going into Iraq and unleashing monsters like Chris Kyle on the general population was not good judgment. In fact Bush etc were repeatedly warned that what they were about to do would lead to disaster and put everyone more at risk of terrorism. They were right, it's because of our invasion of Iraq that Al-Qaeda suddenly expanded into that country, it's because of our invasion that an offshoot of Al-qaeda morphed into ISIS (Even Bush admits this and has publicly said that the rise of ISIS is his only regret about the whole thing) and it's because of that invasion which led to ISIS that my friend Sascha was killed by ISIS in Brussels. What's grey about that? It's pretty black and white and clear cut except that for Sascha now, (and so many more) it's all black now.

Compte Prive I'm sorry about your friend. I had a friend killed also by those maniacs. The reality is though Bush didn't kill your friend, ISIS did. It's like you're allowing ISIS "an excuse" for their crazy religious beliefs. I'm sorry, but religious extremism has been around for centuries. ISIS is not the threat Saddam was. The WORLD depends on oil. FAR MORE lives would be lost if suddenly the flow of oil in the Middle East came to a screeching halt. ISIS isn't going to shut down the Straight of Hormuz -- Saddam could of done that. It's like comparing a bee sting to a Grizzly. Yeah - it sucks getting stung by a bee, and yes some people will even die from a bee sting -- but who would you rather be locked in a room with, a angry bee or a grizzly?

It's really easy to manipulate lefties. Just tell them that giving more power to the government is going to help fight "racism" and "injustice" and they will gladly vote away any liberties they have, including the right to criticize the government.

So....what's your point? USAF Ret.

Kathe Forrest Afraid not, in this case--a tough place to record a very quite speaker.