whereabouts on this link  http://www.irc-online.org/inthenews.php does chomsky talk about US military / tsunami? can't find it. interesting how many people who show contempt for chomsky misspell his name.

Dude, that's a cartoon, it isn't the real Noam Chomsky. Maybe it's time for a lie down?

Personally, i love humour with a cynical twist, and i go in for black humour too. I even like humour directed at the sad side of the left.

The sort of comedy i don't go for is the kind where a bully chucks someone on the floor and invites others to laugh at his victim.

And that is the kind that this one falls into. Taking a human rights advocate who is always getting abuse because he sticks up for people like the Timorese and making him into a figure of ridicule? - Nah, can't join in on this one.

Sometimes the difference between satire and being a jerk is a fine one, but it's worth trying to tell the difference. You get more laughs that way.

The story is there but it's right at the bottom of the page. To the other contributor (sigh) the cartoon was there to illustrate the story not the story being based on the cartoon !

Jesus Alex chill man. This cartoon rips the piss out of NC because he wrote a stupid article trying to link the tragedy in South East Asia to a weapons test that only he knows about !

I agree NC has done some good work but every so often he does go a little nuts !

Sense of Humour - i'm about as chilled as i'm going to get :-)

I can't find Chomsky's article claiming that the US caused the tsunami, and i've checked all over the link and done a bit of Googling. So you'll have to help me out there.

Chomsky can exasperate me sometimes and if he has argued this, then he is losing his grip, but i pretty much doubt it.

Anyway, i find a lot of the stuff aimed at Chomsky pretty unpleasant. I don't think it's a humour deficiency, but thanks for the advice.

Now this stuff is funny:  http://www.theonion.com/index.php?issue=4107

"SFR:It’s been said the US is improving its international image by helping the tsunami victims.

NC: Yes, there’s that total cynicism. You don’t give aid because you hope it’s going to improve your image. The PR aspect of it is overwhelming, which is disgraceful, and the actual amount given is far below what it should be, but in a way we’re kind of missing the point. The tsunami disaster was horrible, the latest figures are 150,000 killed… in eastern Congo that many people are killed every five months. Are we doing anything about that? There are about 1,000 people being killed a day there, or if you take a look at easily preventable deaths in southern Africa alone, just among children, the number dying from easily preventable deaths is probably on the order of 1,000 a day or something. It’s Rwanda-level killing every day, and that can be prevented by providing medicine or infrastructure."

Well, I guess if you can't actually criticise the arguments you probably should just put words in the Gnome's mouth and label him a conspiracy nut. Very clever! Give yourself a kick in the nuts!

Sim 1 may I suggest you look at all of the page the link is to not just the first story where Noam's name is mentioned !

I can't find the article either. Why didn't you paste the link to the article? Maybe because you're just trying to wind people up?

Didn't find what you said. Care to post a link instead of your silly cartoons?

Are you guys sure about this? Or are you making this stuff up or something?
I don't see any reference to Chomsky blaming the tsunami on the US or on any 'secret weapons testing' either on that linked page or via google.

Have you people never used a computer before or what ?

Click here -  http://www.irc-online.org/inthenews.php

Scroll down the page (use the mouse and scroll bar on the right of the webpage)

Go past the first story about him until you reach nearly the bottom - there it is

(slaps forehead with palm of hand)

Hmmm, nice use of condescendtion there, how exactlyu would I be reading Indymedia without using a computer?

I have checked every Chomsky stroy on that page as have others and what you say is not true.

Fuck off.

"condescendtion" ?

perhaps I overestimated your abilities ?

Especially considering the poster of the article couldn't spell Noam.

However I'm sure you are so smart and right that you never spell anything wrong even when typing quickly.

Got that link yet?

Since Richard SenseOfHumour-SlightChuckle is apparently unable to copy and paste the killer link he's going on about, let me help. Here are all the links about Chomsky on the page he cites:

 http://www.democracynow.org/streampage.pl?show=2005-02-09
 http://www.irc-online.org/content/25th/index.php
(last one links to  http://www.irc-online.org/content/25th/chomsky.04.php)
 http://sfreporter.com/
 http://www.altweeklies.com/gyrobase/AltWeeklies/Story?oid=oid%3A143438

Nothing about tsunamis or "secret technology testing" there. So keep slapping your forehead pal, and spare the rest of us the effort.

IMC moderators, can this be hidden from the front page as "inaccurate" please, since you don't seem to have a policy on "right-wing troll bollocks" in your editorial guidelines?

If I'm a troll and I'm talking bollocks then PLEASE post the link to what I need to see/read .

Since you have failed to do so despite repeated requests, I'll assume that the comically named Troll finder general is, in fact, a troll.

Go on, put me out of my misery.

Yes there is an interview with Chomsky. He says nothing about secret militiary testing. He comments instead on how pathetic the aid sent was, when you consider how many millions more Bush spent on trying to bash Kerry.

So maybe you should take the time to actually read the article. I assume the original poster just saw 'Chomsky, Tsunami and US' in the same paragraph and jumped to conclusions about what he was saying.

I don't understand how trolls can spend their lives lying day in day out. Doesn't it make you feel shit? Some people feel guilty over just a white lie, tormenting themselves about it. Lies keep you living in delusion, and cloud your inner clarity.

Here is the article, and notice there is no mention of secret weapons tests

Noam Chomsky on What Matters
By Julia Goldberg (Staff)

SFR: What was your take on the criticisms that the US didn’t react quickly enough to the tsunami?

NC: The initial response was really scandalous. It was virtually nothing and then, after criticism—international criticism and domestic criticism—the US involvement was increased, funding was increased, but it’s still a tiny fraction if you compare it to the scale of the economy. It’s a tiny percentage and, in fact, that’s true of foreign aid generally, it’s not unique to the United States. The percentage of total foreign aid is tiny, but in fact the US has the worst record among the industrialized countries in percentage of the economy, the gross domestic product. The public’s attitude toward this is interesting. The public thinks we give way too much money for public aid but when asked how much we should be giving thinks we should be giving far more than we’re actually giving. There’s just gross illusion about the amount.

SFR:It’s been said the US is improving its international image by helping the tsunami victims.

NC: Yes, there’s that total cynicism. You don’t give aid because you hope it’s going to improve your image. The PR aspect of it is overwhelming, which is disgraceful, and the actual amount given is far below what it should be, but in a way we’re kind of missing the point. The tsunami disaster was horrible, the latest figures are 150,000 killed… in eastern Congo that many people are killed every five months. Are we doing anything about that? There are about 1,000 people being killed a day there, or if you take a look at easily preventable deaths in southern Africa alone, just among children, the number dying from easily preventable deaths is probably on the order of 1,000 a day or something. It’s Rwanda-level killing every day, and that can be prevented by providing medicine or infrastructure.

SFR: Will your Santa Fe appearance with Tariq Ali focus on Palestine and the Middle East?

NC: Precisely for that reason it won’t. I’ll talk about other issues, obviously I’ll have to bring up Iraq. I’ll try to focus on other issues assuming that in the conversation with Tariq we’ll discuss the Middle East.

SFR:CNN pointed out that Bush wants Mahmoud Abbas to visit the White House but he never invited Arafat because Bush viewed Arafat as standing in the way of peace. Does this seem like a legitimate characterization to you?

NC: We’re watching an interesting illustration of how doctrinal systems work. The main principle of a doctrinal system is you have to turn attention from yourself and onto the misdeeds of others. Here’s a perfect example of it. Whatever you think about Arafat, he was not the obstacle to peace. The obstacle to peace was the US. The US has been refusing to accept a political settlement that has overwhelming international support, but the US refuses and the Bush administration is extreme in refusing…so therefore, take a look at the framework for media coverage or commentary. What you have to focus on are the alleged differences between Arafat and Abbas because that, you know, blames it on the Palestinians…if it doesn’t work the way the US wants, they can blame it on Abbas.

SFR: You wrote an article, I think on Znet, that said the Nov. 2 elections told us very little about the state of the country. Can you elaborate?

NC: For a very simple reason. The elections very self-consciously evaded issues of political significance and were focused almost entirely on projecting images in an effort to elude the public into purchasing the candidate who was being sold by the imagery creation. That’s not very surprising. The elections are run by the PR industry and that’s what they do in their everyday lives. What they’re doing is trying to delude you into purchasing this commodity rather than that identical one. When the same industry is given the task of selling candidates they do it the same way. That’s not a democratic election. It’s as much of an election as when you can delude someone into buying a Chevy instead of a Ford by deceit and, in fact, it’s much worse than that because right before the election the major institutions in the country that monitor public attitude…released important studies of the public’s opinion on major issues that were almost completely suppressed in the media and what they showed was the two political parties are way to the right of the public on issue after issue.

SFR: So the subsequent discussions of blue states and red states and moral values, you don’t see that as legitimate?

NC: First of all, what do people mean by ‘values?’ Suppose people say ‘I’m voting because of values.’ That tells you right off they’re not voting on issues and in a democratic society people should be voting on issues. The second issue is what are people’s values? That’s rarely been investigated and the few times it’s been looked at it turns out the values are the country is too materialistic and should be more fair and egalitarian or their values are that they are opposed to the war in Iraq. The red blue state business, yeah there are differences and, in fact, look the factors that differentiate them. Probably the most striking one, statistically, has to do with rising inequality. The states where inequality has been rising, and it’s rising very fast—especially under Bush, but for some years—the states where it’s risen the most rapidly are the blues states, which suggests people are voting on economic issues even though the economic issues aren’t coming up in the election.

SFR: What are the domestic issues in this country that interest you right now?

NC: One major issue in the country is the collapse of the democratic system as illustrated, for example, in the last election. Another crucial issue is healthcare costs. These are really significant. This could well bankrupt the economy, they are going up very fast, they are out of control. A lot of it has to do with the fact it’s privatized and the enormous power of the pharmaceutical industry. And it’s being evaded in favor of a non-issue, mainly Social Security. The huge fuss about the Social Security crisis which first of all doesn’t exist. It’s all a fraud. Everyone in the press is talking about it and there’s no crisis and to the extent that there’s any problem at all it’s tiny when compared with medical care. But the point is the ideological reason behind it. Social Security is a democratic system based on the principle that people care about each other, that we have a community responsibility to make sure vulnerable people are taken care of, so therefore there’s a huge attack on Social Security to try to dismantle it, even though there’s no issue. The transformation of the military to an extremely aggressive posture which is leading to the ultimate doom that mainstream strategists are correct in predicting, that’s another major problem. It’s kind of interesting. When you read the mainstream analysts they barely even hope that it could be dealt with by the American population. Their faith in American democracy is so slight they barely bring that up. What they hope is a coalition of peace-loving states will counter US aggressiveness. They don’t think we can. That’s a very serious problem domestically.

SFR: Do you disagree with the analysis there’s little to be hopeful about in American democracy?

NC: I think there’s a tremendous amount to be hopeful about. Look at public opinion polls. What they show is that the large majority of public opinion probably agrees with you and the position of your paper. I don’t know the position of your paper but I’m just guessing…Take the activist positions. That’s a hopeful a sign. The point is the activists happen to be in the mainstream of opinion. That’s hopeful because it means there are ways to overcome what’s going on now by creating a more democratic society.

If you click on the original link, it takes you to something called the International Relations centre. There's a massive great long list of links, a few of which contain references to Noam Chomsky. I looked at the most relevant looking ones and couldn't find anything to do with secret weapons testing. If there is such a link, can the original poster please paste it. Directing us to a page with many many links and then expecting us to do all the work, only to find nothing at all - what's that all about. If you've got something to show us then show us. Otherwise stop lying. If you're so convinced you are correct with your right wing extremist world view then don't you think you can use the power of logic and facts to convince us. Why the need for dishonesty???

I also did a google search for "Chomsky Tsunami US weapons testing", and similar variations. All I could find was a reference to an egyption weekly news magazine running some conspiracy. It (the website) said that this news magazine was engaging in conspiracy theories but that we can't prove it's not true just because it's a conspiracy theory. By way of analogy it also said (rather pathetically) "Has anyone proved that Noam Chomsky is not a child molester?". Hence the Chomsky link.

Some of my more "imaginative" countrymen believe that the December 26 tsunami was caused by a secret weapon developed under the auspices of something called HAARP - offhand I don't recall what the acronym stands for - which is administered by a research facility in Alaska that does atmospheric testing with low frequency radio waves. These HAARP watchers are quite adamant in their belief that the US govt. caused the tsunami by employing this technology. Personally, I think it is rubbish, but their zeal in contesting sceptics often proves very entertaining as they trot out endless links to like-minded HAARP watcher "research." Needless to say, as everyone here has seen, Chomsky made no reference to this HAARP technology as the cause of the tsunami. "Richard" is a Troll, and not a very good one at that.