سردبير: خودم

هودر خان چامسکی صرفا پارانویای دولتمردان آمریکا رو توضیح داده، که خیلی هم درسته. الان تمام منابع سنتی انرژی جهان در خاورمیانه و روسیه قرار گرفته، که از سمت غرب با جامعه اروپا همسایه هست و از شمال که خود روسیه است) و از شرق هم چین و هند هستند. تنها کسی که توی این پارتی نیست آمریکا هست و نه روسیه نه اروپا نه ایران (به عنوان قدرت اصلی خاورمیانه) نه چین نه هند دل خوشی از آمریکا ندارند. ضمنا دولتمردان آمریکا هم که چون راهی غیر از هفت تیرکشی و زور بلد نیستن حسابی به قول معروف پنیک panic کردن!

حسین جان کمتر کس شعر بگو. این حرفا یعنی چی؟یه چیزی بگو که ما عوام الناس بفهمیم.

جناب هودر خواهش میکنم بخش کامنتهای مقاله را به دقت بخوانید. انوقت خواهید دید که استدلالهای نویسنده و سابقه اوچندان با تعبیر شما جور در نمی اید.نویسنده ضمن اینکه استدلال چامسکی را رد نمی کند ان را به لجن میکشد. اینکه هر کاری امریکا میکند از روی نادانی است خود استدلال نادرستی است. امریکا به استدلالهای اقتصادی برای توجیه عملیات نظامی خود د ست نمی زند. بلکه بر عکس توجیه عملیات نظامی بر مبنای دموکراسی، تروریست و تسلیحات انهدام جمعی استوار است. دوم اینکه وظیفه یک تحلیل کننده مسائل سیاسی با یک استراتژیست سیاسی متفاوت است. این مقاله از نظر استدلالی ضعیف و ازنطر سیاسی غلط است . احتیاج به نفت هیچگاه توجیحه خوب و مردم پسندی برای امریکا در حمله به ایران نخواهد بود.

نوام چامسکی یهودی نیست بلکه آتیسته. بهتره بگی یهودی تبار. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Atheist_philosophers

you could not be more right about Chomsky. the sad thing is Chomsky KNOWS what he is doing. Her is a linguist and he knows how language is the medium of mind control. Any genuine peace movement in the world has to bo beyond Chomsky. Chomsky, contrary to the opinion of SABOORIAN does nt have that much of a problem with the right wing Jews. What Hussein cannot say (still do'n know why) is the reason why BUSH and Chomsky both work to benefit the Jewish State of Israel. Bush's action is not out of stupidity, it is the final amalgamation of Israel and USA into what Sasan Fayazmanesh (Chair of the Department of Economics at California State University, Fresno) calls USRAEL. here are his words " I am not the originator of the term. It existed before it appeared in some of my essays. I used it in the sense that under the Bush Administration the US and Israel's foreign policy towards the Middle East converged and became virtually indistinguishable. As I explained earlier, this started to happen a few weeks after the events of the September 11, 2001, when the "neoconservatives" aligned the US policy in the Middle East with that of Likud. Given this alignment, there is no significant policy difference between the US and Israel over Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Syria or Lebanon. This was not the case under the previous administrations. For example, during the Clinton Administration the Likud and their "neoconservative" counterparts in the US were trying to toughen the US stand towards Iran. But near the end of the Clinton era US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, under the pressure from the US corporate lobby, tried to modify the direction of the US belligerent policy towards Iran, much to the dismay of the Israeli lobby groups. Her March 17, 2000, speech-in which she nearly apologized for the CIA's 1953 coup in Iran and spoke of the "regrettably shortsighted" US policy of supporting Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran war-was part of her attempt at rapprochement. We have not seen such rapprochements since the "neoconservatives" took over the US Middle East foreign policy and made it almost identical to that of Israel."

HUSSEIN JAAN: you know I have been critical of Chomsky for many years, glad to see you join the family on this. Now next is for you to realize 1- the ilegal nature of the Jewish state 2- the role Zionism is playing as the "little guy's" modern western European oriented ideology that is complementary to the big three liberalism, communism and fascism. Did you know that Chomsky used to be an ardent Zionist when he was young? And still supports the idea of a racist Jews-only democracy called israel. At best he is a closeted Zionist. At worst, he is a paid agent of the ford foundation who works like Goldstein in 1984; to identify and null any descent person who really wants to fight the system.

What is our assumption about the public? People who cannot understand very basic logic? I reall y do not follow your line of reasoning, but it's frightening in the sense that you are compromising just too much.

حسین خان ...نوام چامسکی اگر از چپ !!بجرج بوش میتازد با راست مسلکهای یهودی اختلاف دارد نه بخاطر مردم فقیر و کشورهای ضعیف است نه بخاطر استقلال ان ضعفا مقابل امریکا ٬ بلکه تو دنیای قوم برگزیده خدا خودشان با خودشان جدال دارند