1986--Noam Chomsky vs. John Silber

That's the most visibly frustrated I've ever seen Chomsky.

Chomsky cites sources, while Silber evokes Hitler.

Frightening that this Silber was in a position of authority in a learning institution. He argues like an angry 15 year old.

"Really? I control the American press?" ahahahahah The way he said that was real.

This debate is a good example why Noam is so important. During the war against the people of Nicaragua there were few other sources to get the truth.

Sibler, "you're lying again!!!" Chomsky, "I didn't even say anything yet..." Fucking gold.....

I love Chomsky final "Yeah, okay" XD

That moderator was quite lame in allowing Silber to go postal on a guest.

I know he would detest the title but I can't help saying that Noam Chomsky is a hero, an intellectual hero who fought for the truth in the face of vast repression.  I love the man with all my heart! 

Let me save you guys some time and sum up the debate. Noam: Cited facts and their sources about the Nicaraguan conflict. Silber: "Totalitarian!" "Orwell's 1984" "PHONY!" "Hitler!" and the low key threat of "it's time that someone had the opportunity of correcting your historical misstatements, while you're still around."

Chomsky is loved in Nicaragua for standing up for there country. When chomskys wife past away the Nicaraguan people planted a forest in her memory.

I did some background reading on Silber, and I wasn't surprised to learn that he left a trail of alienation and revulsion throughout his life. He bullied and shouldered his way to the top of an elite institution, but Chomsky - like a laser - focuses on the documented facts and on the hypocrisy of spokespersons for imperial violence. This is a priceless clip and, as always, I'm astonished at how Chomsky maintains his focus and composure in the face of countless interruptions, nonsequiturs, and personal attacks. What a legend.

Chomsky is like Messi playing against a weekend warrior.

This is precisely why Chomsky was all but banned from all major cable networks – he's exceedingly more intelligent than his interviewer and his panel opponent. The right (wrongfully) accuse him of being too far left, but this could not be more wrong. He simply questions institutional thinking – on both sides of the ledger.

Now I see where Hannity and O'Reilly get their styles from. Silber was a terrible debater and a pathetic state apologist.

13:08 The effective leader Edgar Chamorro, who Silber cites, testified to the ICJ that the contras did commit serious crimes, such as kidnap, rape, and torture. He testified further that "The CIA did not discourage such tactics. To the contrary, the Agency severely criticized me when I admitted to the press that the FDN had regularly kidnapped and executed agrarian reform workers and civilians. We were told that the only way to defeat the Sandinistas was to...kill, kidnap, rob and torture..." In hindsight anyone who was on the fence or leaned toward the Silber position was entirely wrong, and Chomsky had been entirely right.

Even Silber liked that Luxembourg analogy. (;

Noam Chomsky - "...really I have control of the american press? are you mad brah?" lol

Silber says to Chomsky that he wanted correct him "while you're still around." (5:17) Silber exudes boiling rage, violence, authoritarianism, and fascism, arguing for increasing an illegal US terrorist war against Nicaragua and continually trying to silence Chomsky's voice throughout the segment.  You can almost see Silber wanting to hit him or have some goons drag him out.  Does anyone think the "while you're still around" statement was kind of a veiled death threat?  Chomsky was only 58 here.  Nowhere near a point of dying of old age. 

John Silber debates like a bully and a barabarian. Actually his facial expressions, his body language, his agitation and his outbursts of temper and name-calling are classic indications of a debater who is insecure in his position and senses that he is on thin ice.