1 Casper, October 12, 2008 at 7:44 p.m.:

He has a very interesting view of society. Most people do not like to consider themselves as hipocrites, but Chomsky goes all out and calls everyone a hipocrite, even himself. I have never considered the view before, but his evidence has convinced me that it is a very true statement. He also makes a very good point with the question, "What is terrorism?" There really is no correct definition as views on terrorism vary all throughout the world. Overall, Chomsky brings a very interesting point of view on the war to the table here.

2 Harsha, October 12, 2008 at 8:10 p.m.:

It is interesting to note in this lecture that Chomsky tries to sound somewhat objective in how his speech is structured. He continually states specific sources, and asserts that certain events are "uncontroversial" and "obvious." Also, for any significant assertions, he urges listeners to "go look it up." This approach by Chomsky is ironic in the sense that even though his delivery is meant to be objective, the topic of the speech, international terrorism, is actually a quite subjective, controversial topic, one that inevitably contains some degree of bias.

In addition to conveying the hypocrisies of the so called "war on terror", Chomsky also mocks the media. All the examples of international terrorism given by Chomsky, are what he considers "off the record." This is ironic since American prides itself on values and rights such as freedom of the press, and yet, according to Chomsky, the general American population still gets a biased and manipulated report from the media.

Chomsky takes a very cynical view of our country and of Israel, repeatedly recounting how America is adamant in opposing UN resolutions, and International Court decisions, which are generally supported by the rest of the world. I like that Chomsky actually states what many are too afraid to say: that as a country, the USA has not always practiced what it preaches, that as a nation we are hypocritical, especially on the topic of terrorism, and we have fallen back on a policy of conquering by force, not by diplomacy or any type of fairness.

3 Alex Yang, October 13, 2008 at 4:23 a.m.:

This clip shows why Noam Chomsky is one of the most cited intellectuals to date. He offers listeners a unique view on the war of terrorism where he denounces everyone hypocrites. Before watching this clip, I read on Wiki that he admitted that he was a "boring" speaker with this quote, "I'm a boring speaker and I like it that way…. I doubt that people are attracted to whatever the persona is." From this, I expected to fall asleep half way through, but Noam Chomsky, despite his poor speech skills, captured my attention with his intellect and opinions.

4 Mariam, October 13, 2008 at 8:19 a.m.:

Indeed, Chomsky is bold in his statements about the war on terror, but his ideas offer a new perspective for people, especially Americans, to consider. It is simple to think of the war on terror as a fight against terrorists, but that's just on the surface. There are several more factors to consider. For example, is the war on terror really just against terrorists? Chomsky identified several examples, both from 1985 and from 2001-2002 in which civilians and innocent people were feeling the brunt of those war, as opposed to the targeted terrorists. I also agree that thought we present ourselves as a land of many freedoms, we are not as ready to "grant" those freedoms to other people.

Also, in thinking about the war of terror, Chomsky highlights the role of the media. Part of our misconceptions about what the war on terror is is the fact that the media has bias in presenting the facts. Chomsky discussed on event in international terrorism, for example, that American media refused to cover. This bias is a detriment to understanding the war on terror.

All in all, however you feel about the war on terror, I think Chomsky has some great insights to offer, daring to challenge what we have accepted for so long.

5 Crystal, October 14, 2008 at 1:46 a.m.:

Noam Chomsky is a very interesting thinker, somewhat bias, and boring. His theories on hypocricy and terrorism conflicts with the way human beings acquire knowledge. Everyone doesn't learn everything the same way, therefore one persons definition of terrorism and hypocricy is not the same as anothers. Also, what may be blindly "obvious" to Chomsky may not be blindy "obivous" to others, it depends on what kind of thinkier the observer is. The one thing I agreed with Chomsky on was the news media. Basically, the media tells us what ever they want us to know and in a very bias way... SO really what is terrorism? and who are hypocrites?

6 p kramer, February 28, 2009 at 10:16 p.m.:

It's tough not being the good guys in the white hats. Things just aren't what they used to be. Manifest Destiny and all that noise.

7 Naeem Sahibzada, January 9, 2010 at 2:16 p.m.:

The problem is different. America claims to be and presently are trying to lead the free world. This process started after the first world war but unfortunately the USA born americans by their design,systems,lack of international exposure, inward attitudes and by their basic education system are not prepared for that leadership role they find themselves in which they have merely imposed on themselves on the basis of their military might based on their small population and abundance of resources in a vast virgin land.

It is a fact that they actually feel that the parameters of the world finishes with their home problems and their territorial borders sometimes even that of their states.
This also holds true even for their so called educated lot and home grown scholars. Exposure of a few to a few insitutes and think tanks with pre defined agendas in the later non formative years of their lives cannot bring the required realization and really change their way of thinking and attitudes. This actually is the basic reason for inappropiate behaviour,way of thinking and their mostly unthought absurd actions with a pre defined hidden agenda but invariably sugar coated in thier hollow slogans of democracy,freedom and liberty for rest of the world.

Unfortunately for the rest this shall continue to be the case as long as they don't change their basic scheme of things and their systems which then possibly might enable them to identify with the the rest of the world , their sensitivties and their pecuiliar problems. Else their leadership role will continue to be challenged, will be full of problems, turmoil and indeed very very short lived.

They are an aloof lot and literally ignorant/insensitive to the world problems and their complexities in the historical prespective and the resultant behaviours, sensitivities and attitudes of the others. They really have no sense of the world history whatsoever. All they need to do is acknowledge and learn from not just their own history which really is of no consequence to the rest of the world and its people and tribes but the real history of the world and its people in various places and also learn from the mistakes of great powers and forces of consequence that existed before them.