And 'cares deeply' for Israel? That's pretty lame. And why would a supposedly secular Jew like Chomsky even care about Israel existing since the whole justification for it is based on religion?

I don't think Chomsky is doing too bad. His responses to this woman's b.s. are pretty good. He said he doesn't support Israel as a Jewish state so that's not the same as what's implied by the title of the thread.

I believe that the problem goes farther than just the Zionists and is a matter of the ruling class dominating in general. But the ruling class is made up largely of Zionists and they do pursue their unique sick agenda. But people like Cheney, are no better. Even Zbignew Brezinski, some people think he's somewhat alright cause he criticizes Israel but he has his own twisted vision of imperialism he'd like to implement, not a humanitarian vision. Even John Kennedy if you look into it was a pretty bad guy and he was killed not because he was good but because he had a conflicting vision of how he wanted to go about implementing imperialist policies.

So those who say that it's all the Zionists let the non-Jew rulers off the hook, just as those like Chomsky and Jones who obfuscate Israel let the Zionists off the hook. That's my current opinion

I did not get to the end of the Eastman post.  I do agree that his statements on 9-11 should be redacted or at least held up to criticism. 

Getting back to Chomsky - basically, Eastman's probably right in a general sense - however crudely he tends to express his ideas.   I always felt Chomsky was part of the "baffle them with bull****" school of theorists, up there somewhere with Physicist Michio "time travel wormhole guy" Kaku, a regular on Art Bell.  

The following review of one of Chomsky's books will give an idea my own frustration:

I'm a scientist with a background in (analytic) philosophy, and am used to technical writing and complex ideas; I picked up this book on John Searle's recommendation in an article in the New York Review of Books. I don't know what Searle was thinking; I found these lectures impenetrable.

Chomsky's examples are far from illuminating and get bogged down in details -- examples of phonological or syntactical transformations involve piles upon piles of poorly introduced material, and it's frustrating to get a page and a half through some dense presentation only to discover that he then invokes some principle you've never heard of and he doesn't explain. It's claimed that these lectures are for a "general" audience, which I think must mean "a general audience of linguists".

I came out the other end with barely more understanding of Chomsky's linguistics than I did coming in -- after many hours of trying to parse his rather tortured prose.

I think the future of linquistics probably lies somewhere with studies of the actual physical brain (see AmenClinics.com) and how it operates in a language sense rather than with unproven theorists like Chomsky. 

seems I was right:

That article is hardly a good resource on the inaccuracy of Chomsky's work on linguistics. I'm not a Chomsky supporter, but Dick Eastman is doing far more harm than the Gnome. From Eastman's article:

Jews did 9-11.

I only wish a larger percentage of them would admit it in public, because they all know it.  ?

Firstly, the phrase "Jews did 9/11" is not only inaccurate, but it makes us all sound like complete morons. Do we really believe that all the perps were Jews?

Even the phrase "Israel did 9/11" gives me the shits. It too makes us sound like fucking luddites. Israel "did" 9/11? How about doing us a favour and taking the time to sound more like an educated adult than a first grader by saying something like 'Israel carried out the 9/11 attacks'?

Secondly: "I only wish a larger percentage of them would admit it in public, because they all know it." They "all know it", do they? Give me a fucking break, Eastman. You're embarrassing yourself.

Fuckwit phraseology and idiotic statements like the above only serve to discredit the anti-Zionist community and those of us that work hard to raise awareness about Israel's role in the 9/11 attacks. Eastman is working for the other side, whether he knows it or not.

I was once forced to read Chomsky's work on linguistics and thought it was a bunch of drivel - seems I was right: