Talk:Michel Chossudovsky/Archive 2

'Conspiracy theory' is a pejorative term, which simply demonstrates a hostile POV. It adds no useful information. Better, especially in the case of a recognised academic, to use a neutral term such as 'critical geopolitical analysis'. For critics to add meaningless labels like this simply subverts the idea of presenting neutral information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KateLVM (talk • contribs) 05:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Very clearly should be an entry for him. He eschews traditional institutional analysis... or, its not so much that he ignores it... He posits a theory and then finds and organisation which seems to exemplify, or be an expression of his ideas, then posits that this "instituion" is actually an example and proof of his theory. eg. see his latest article on how the US and Canada are "training combat troops in Haiti" -- for his conspiratorial mindset he just couldn't fathom that military forces have been traditional first responders to all sorts of emergencies... Canadaman1(talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.116.40.235 (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Michel Chossudovsky is very clearly eligible to be in the conspiracy theory category. Not only is he a 9/11 conspiracy theorist as previously discussed on this page, but he also believes the United States has a malicious weather machine that they use against their enemies to great effect. See this source : http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7561. Please do not revert this edit without discussion. Zabby1982 (talk) 05:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

this is a distortion of the meaning of the term 'conspiracy theory.' His work on HAARP is meant to highlight that the US has researched weather manipulation technology that has some degree of success. His own work on 9/11 has been to focus on the unanswered questions, such as "Why has no other skyscraper collapsed in the spectacular fashion of the Twin Towers, despite experiencing similarly hot fires?" It is not a conspiracy to question officialdom on the matter. Chossudovsky in no way fits in with Lyndon LaRouche or Alex Jones or David Icke. They are conspiracy theorists.

I don't even know the definition of 'conspiracy theory' but this guy seems to qualify. I think it can be argued that he has some say into how his books are presented for sale on the CRG web site http://www.globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth911.html. What does it say? "In this new and expanded edition of Michel Chossudovsky's 2002 best seller, the author blows away the smokescreen put up by the mainstream media, that 9/11 was an attack on America by 'Islamic terrorists'." That's enough for me; I'd say he fits community definition of a conspiracy theorist.JakartaDean (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Troyc001 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC) _______________________________________________________________________________________________ The 'Criticism' Section: I have removed that section on the basis that section was absurd. This article has been highlighted for improvement and so removing the last section is a start towards that. Professor Chossudovsky is an important academic and ought to be treated with respect at the very least. The website www.globalresearch.ca is an important source of information and is the work of many people who have academic credentials and so to simply dismiss it all is not appropriate for an article that introduces such an important person and such fine work. [Ian] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.62.67 (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC) [ in addition] With the greatest of respect to those who are part of this discussion forum, I feel that the last section of this article ought to be removed and I did so on the basis that it is extreme. I have not been able to do so. My contribution has been considered and thoughtful and respectful and I would appreciate it as being seen as such please. It is true that I have not a 'signed name' here, but it is true that I appreciate the work of Professor Chossudovsky and would like more respect to be shown to a living academic in order to fit in with the Wikipedia guidelines on that. If the final section cannot be removed then how can this article be improved? To say that someone who does the work that he does as 'nutty' is a comment that will leave others feeling ill at ease and misinformed. I think it is disrespectful and not appropriate for a Wikipedia article and that it falls short of the quality standards expected. I will leave this comment here for others to reflect on and hope that people will view it as being in keeping with the Wikipedia philosophies of respect and consideration. The article falls short and there seems to be no obvious way to be able to improve it. The changes I made were immediately reverted and it means that the article is still not adequate. Perhaps the standards will improve. All the best.

[Ian] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.62.67 (talk) 06:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, once you add context to some of the criticism's here, you are only validating that Chossudovsky seemed to be keen at predicting some things. Terry O'Niell considered the banking system collapsing as a "wild eyed conspiracy". Galvin said Chossudovsky thought that Chossudovsky was mouthing "Assad propaganda" for noting the violence of the Syrian rebels towards Christians, etc. Maybe Galvin's opinion would be different today, what do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifersen (talk • contribs) 21:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

you would have to ask him. wp:notforum. Sayerslle (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, it is interesting since you can find many sources that say Syrian rebels joined forces with Al-Nusra and Al-Nusra pledges allegiance with ISIS. By the way, Sayerslle, when I do edits, I explain my reasoning, then you undue them and call me Assad loving or Putin loving. Very grown up of you! Ifersen (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

undo them ,- you don't explain anything , you just express your prejudices in edits that wipe out material you find incompatible with your political cosmology. that's how I see it anyhow. Sayerslle (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Sayersslle, as I said on my talk page, is it not good enough for you guys that half of Chossudovsky's page is not fully explained criticisms made by people much less distinguished than he is? You guys (you, and BobRaynor mostly) make any attempt to omit information that credits Chossudovsky and you watch his page like a hawk to protect these criticism's that have been frequently discussed on talk page and mostly do not belong here. Oh, Jewish Tribune had a problem with what commenters said on a website with disclaimer, which were removed? This is a note worthy criticism to you but yet you will erase paragraphs that discuss his actual work / life.

Oh, some unknown made an editorial calling him nuttiest professor based on three wild-eyed conspiracy's, one of which actually came true (banking system collapsed). You consider this noteworthy but will erase anything about his works on the global economy, etc. I don't watch this page like a hawk, I just check it every now and then because of you and BobRaynor. On the contrary, you or BobRaynor seem to be always online and watching reverts of your criticism's. How long before one of you erase the context to Galvin's criticism again? (Because let's face it, further explanations of things often discredit the criticism). Who is really trying to slant this to their political cosmology? Cheers.Ifersen (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

it's 'criticisms', plural - why do you keep writing criticism's? - anyhow - I don't see it like that - I see you obsessively remove the apologist description - the fact you think 'further explanations of things often discredit the criticism' - as relating to Syrian Civil War for example merely marks you out as a pro-Assad imo, happy to see civilians and unarmed protestors massacred, and mass torture - did you see the Caesar report/ ifersen? - or did that escape your chossudovsky-RT-PressTv views of everything ? - because its all terrorists really - and foreign CIA/NATO etc - IslamicState is a Zionist/Western conspiracy in the Assad-ist lexicon isn't it? - two wrongs don't make a right anyhow - chossudovsky is against terror unless its his fascist Donbass rebels taking out civilian airliners, or Hezbollah, or assad-ist barrel bombs, or gadaffi, - Assad released islamist extremists in early 2011 - while he jailed liberals - he's a machiavel - does chossudovsky ask why he released islamist extremists? - and worked with them for anti-American purposes in Iraq before that? - its cynical politics ifersen, - its a machiavel world -is sunni terror wrong and Shi'ite terror right in chossudivsky land? - as for chossudivsky being more distinguished than his critics - that's just in your demented Putin-ist loving soul imo - he doesn't appear in the least distinguished to me as he rants his awful rubbish on RT and is fawned over by puppet interviewers. I find it grotesque. - now my political cosmology is very different to yours but none of that matters - what matters is your incessant removal of RS material with the demented insistence that what is discovered therein , is not there , as with the karadjis sourced sentence. Sayerslle (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is derogatory. Volunteer Marek is reversing my edit attempts. Dotyacd (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

One section in this article lists Chossudovsky's belief that Bin Laden was a CIA asset as an example of his use of unsubstantiated claims, but the CIA did work with Bin Laden in the Soviet-Afghan War. Should this be corrected to say that Chossudovsky was falsely claiming that he was still an asset at the time of 9/11? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.112.54.2 (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from bringing your personal opinion and bring reliable sources. FkpCascais (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

This edit is not supported by the sources (call it WP:OR). The sources say that Chossudovsky and his Centre promote conspiracy theories; they don't say that "detractors" or "opponents" label him as such. Unless someone can bring sources to bear that frame matters in those terms, it's wildly improper. Neutrality^talk 05:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

We need to know if that is a dominant view. FkpCascais (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Do any reliable sources expressly contest that Chossudovsky promotes conspiracy theories? No, they don't. And you should self-revert, unless and until you gain consensus for modifying the word -- since the material in the article was longstanding and supported by reliable sources. Neutrality^talk 05:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

And what actual reliable sources (not conspiracy junk) describe him as a "critical geopolitical analyst"? This is purely unsourced junk. Neutrality^talk 05:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone know of any reliable source indicating that Chossudovsky's "Centre for Research on Globalization" is an FSB front? Its publications on Ukraine, and other matters in which Putin's Russia is heavily involved, are so extreme as to suggest that the "Centre" is actually a propaganda front. It certainly isn't independent or balanced.Royalcourtier (talk) 08:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

You cannot find out these things reliably with proof etc. You can read his globalresearch.ca website and reach your own conclusions.

Practically all websites follow an agenda, we just have to read several with several agendae. Ally Hauptmann-Gurski 2001:8003:AC60:1400:3538:F881:D6A7:562A (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

This page really needs a "Conspiracy Theory" Moniker. I think that we need to scale up the discussion. (talk)

Is there any connection between Michel Chossudovsky and Lyndon LaRouche? They seem to have the same agenda and share many beliefs. Shouldn't the text about Michel Chossudovsky focus a bit more on his conspiracy theories about the New World Order (conspiracy), globalization and such things. Now they are just mentioned. - Johan, Sweden

He is not a conspiracy theorist. He states very clearly that there are institutional structures which result in the outcomes which he highlights. He never implies a dark cabal of shadowy figures plotting to rule the world. Those who characterize his work as being conspiracy theory are using a straw man. Troyc001 13:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

he does claim e.g. that al qaeda is controlled by pentagon , or that u.s. military received advanced warning of the 2004 tsunami, but withheld this information from asian countries . sounds like conspiracy theories to me. - Ktotam 16:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish. Al Quaeda is known to have been helped by the CIA and perhaps even created by the CIA during the Soviet-Afghan war. The aim was to draw the Soviets into the "Afghan trap." The CIA funded and trained militant Islamic fanatics in the hope that they would wage Jihad on the Ruskies and weaken them significantly. It's no conspiracy theory.

Honestly folks, whether you believe him or not is not in question, but a man who has articles on his own website that posit the theory that the United States government can contr

ol the weather is clearly catagorizable as a conspiracy theorist. This is not POV, this is common sense. See . I have returned the category to the article and I believes it deserves to be there unless someone can address my points. Zabby1982 21:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't say, that the US gov can control the weather. Btw. have you heard about global warming?--Raphael1 23:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually that's exactly what he said. The article's title is "Owning the weather for military use" - how else would you like to interpret it? Yes I have heard about global warming, that is totally a separate issue from believing the HAARP program is a clandestine effort to control the weather for military purposes.Zabby1982 (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"Rubbish. Al Quaeda is known to have been helped by the CIA and perhaps even created by the CIA during the Soviet-Afghan war." - rubbish.

"The aim was to draw the Soviets into the "Afghan trap." The CIA funded and trained militant Islamic fanatics in the hope that they would wage Jihad on the Ruskies and weaken them significantly." - entirely correct.

The salient point is that the ISI did not want to have the CIA (whom they distrusted as much as depended on) snooping in their own backyard. Combine this with a language/culture barrier and the CIA's need to maintain some degree of deniability; do some research, ask some Afghan refugees for Abraham's sake; every major country should have quite a number by now, after all the miscellaneous crusaders for "the supreme" civilization have done to that country. The Mujis were/are a diverse bunch, and the CIA only had control over part of them; some were handled by Pakistan alone, some were joint Pak-US enterprises, some were sorta independent, some were supported by Iran and I believe there was even some Iran-US cooperation. But the al-Qaeda idea was only born as a consequence of all this - to create an opt-in platform that would render such endeavors independent of Western interference. OBL's Afghan adventure is vastly exaggerated in most sources; his group back in the early 80s were mainly smugglers, and the CIA had little if any direct contact with them. The ISI, greedy for Osama's greenback stack, didn't want external forces to jump on their gravy train, and the aversion of core members of the OBL group to associate with shirkers certainly helped. The ISI has always held personnel for such cases, people who were "pure" enough in matters like tawhid can succeed in negotiations where pig-eating Westerner theological relativists who use their ass-wiping hand to manipulate food (i.e. your average CIA agent) would not stand a chance. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way folks: Chossudovsky is not involved in the "propagation" of alternative theories on 9/11. They get published on Global Research along with a great deal of other stuff that wasn't written by Chossudovsky or approved by him. For a real conspiracy, try checking out Chomsky's work on the "Manufacture of Consent" and the use of big media conglomerates to keep people in check. Chossudovsky's work is mild and uncontroversial when compared to real conspiracies and large scale dissemination of propaganda (anyone remember the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Information? Nope, it was NOT closed down, either, contrary to what you might think by reading only the mainstream media reports).

That's ridiculous, of course the 9/11 articles are approved by him, as with anything else on that site, he's the editor of globalresearch.ca . That's what editors do, they approve articles and manage content. Zabby1982 22:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently he was part of a speaking tour about "alternative theories on 9/11". Zabby1982 19:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Everyone who hates America says the American government is either hatching complex and dark schemes of conquest and suppression or are stumbling, silly clowns without a clue... which is it? Just pick an America that fits your hate and make it "real."

Chossudovsky does not hate America, he is one of Canada's most brillent academics who has been a contributing factor to international research in economics. He is grossly and deliberatly misrepresented to belittle his work. He was in Chile when Pinnochet took over--- in fact all his collugues, American economists teaching in Chile, started running the country's economic affairs with Pinnochet's take-over. He was also in Kosovo and the former Yugoslavia and saw first hand the truth behind what was really happening there. He is respected greatly in Europe and Asia where he is very popular in countries such as Malyasia, South Korea, and Serbia. His work on 9/11 uses offical and mainstream sources such as CNN transcripts which prove that the Bush Administration had meetings with Pakistani intelligence which was funding the 9/11 terrorists. 74.101.98.235

If he is such a brilliant academic, Why aren't any of his books published by an academic press? Quackgrassacrez (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC).

"he is one of Canada's most brillent academics" - I hope not. Brilliance in the humanities should encompass at least some ability to adequately predict the future, or aspects of it, from analysis of the past. Chossudovsky's analyses regarding US foreign policy in the aftermath of 9/11 have a failure rate approaching a whopping 100%. He might be better off if he constrains himself to economics, of which he seems clearly capable enough. Global politics-wise, he has been cranking out regression fallacies by the dozen. Prove me wrong, but his predictions e.g. regarding Iran have fallen flat. He is still, like so many others, mentally stuck in the 20th century, failing to acknowledge that the "only superpower left standing" has become much worse for the wear and is only one big playa among several (US/NATO, Russia, PRC, India, EU, the Ummah and MERCOSUR for example). Tehran still stands, the Russians have overwhelmingly won the W Caucasus war, and Hugo Chavez' Bolivarian game ist stil running at full speed and Israel is deadlocked in its domestic problems and arguably lost the S Lebanon war, and all the while the one and only satisfying and comprehensive theory on how 9/11 happened was published by as-Sahab. All events that Chossudovsky did not anticipate - to the contrary! The narrowness of his analyses compares "well" with people like Ledeen or Perle who thought that their grandiose Straussian ideas simply could not, under no circumstances, backfire. In a nutshell, few if any of these people are historians, and it shows in their undue emphasis of has-been philosophers' ephemeral pipe dreams.

A few actual quotes by the man would be in order to spice up this article beyond the factual yet positively hagiographic "oh he's so educated and so VIP and so cool" stuff. I mean, Rumsfeld held a spade of high offices, but he despite having the world's mightiest military at his beck and call and near-carte blanche on how to use it ("We don't do body counts."), he nearly lost a war against a ragtag guerilla. A war, moreover, in which he had in theory a level of C3I never achieved before. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You are talking as if conspiracy is not an actual category in the criminal law or the subject of historical and social scientific (especially criminological) study and, furthermore, that there can be no theories about them. A conspiracy is any plot by two or more persons planned in confidence designed to advance, at the expense and likely objection of others, the material interests of the planners or of those they represent. In science, one can have theories about anything that isn't supernatural. Clearly conspiracies are within the scope of scientific inquiry. There is no rule that a scientist has to use a natural science method based on models induced from those domains where things and systems do not plan or are planned. Human beings have a complex brain that allows them to act intentionally and coordinate their actions (this is why we have social science). In short: humans plan. The fact is that there are conspiracies. If there were no conspiracies, then one would be hard pressed to explain why so many people sit in prison for having been convicted of one. And without theories about them, no criminal trial in which conspiracy was entered as a charge would be possible. Moreover, it is not as if the only valid conspiracy theories are the one's the state legitimizes through the official ritual of a criminal trial (at that point they are not theories anymore, but findings or rulings). In fact, conspiracies and the competing theories about them are, for historians and social scientists, mundane. The denigration of the term "conspiracy theory" is designed or at least functions to dismiss certain theories that risk undermining elite projects and official narratives. Why would Wikipedia perpetuate the ideological twisting of a valid construct by labeling some pages "conspiracy theory" with the meaning imposed here? This transforms Wikipedia into an obfuscation machine. If this practice were regularized, Wikipedia would be stamping some knowledge as legitimate while casting doubt on other knowledge with a label that benefits some interests over others. How is that in keeping with the goal of providing an objective source of information for the world community? On the contrary, it makes Wikipedia an instrument of propaganda. Let there be an entry on “conspiracy theory” and have all views regarding the meaning of that phrase covered. But do not employ the use of the term as a designation for other entries. No stamps of disapproval should be allowed. Wwsword (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I am very uncomfortable with having Chossudovsky and his organisation branded as 'conspiratorial' from the outset. This is denigrating to a well-respected academic and scholar. Yes, let there be space in the article for such discussion. But there is no need for such an epithet from the very beginning. I am not able to contact Bobrayner, who seems pivotal in reverting any such attempt at neutralising this 'conspiracy' term. This seriously needs to be addressed - Paradigmatic-example (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I am ALSO uncomfortable with having Chossudovsky and his organisation branded as 'conspiracist' from the outset, even though I disagree with Paradigmatic-example's assessment of MC. Whereas info/criticism detailing the 'conspiracy theories' the site puts forward is valid, (even an attributed statement such as 'the organisation has been described as advancing conspiracy theories'), the label is vague to the point of being meaningless (as well as being seemingly unsourced). Pincrete (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not uncomfortable with Chossudovsky and his organization being branded "conspiracist" at all, because that's what it is. Also, to the anonymous IP from 11 years ago who accused the CIA of helping Al-Qaeda, you've obviously confused them with the Afghan Mujahadeen. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The article is derogatory. Volunteer Marek is reversing my edit attempts. Dotyacd (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories evolve when we are not told the full facts.

We feel it does not add up, have no idea what is being withheld, and then we connect our own dots. How often have we heard something years later and say 'oh that's how it was, now it makes sense'. Afghanistan was a trap for the Soviets, some people just used a fluid situation there to make it a trap. The German Karsten Voigt (Shadow Defense minister in the Bundestag) confirmed that to me when I was a journalist in 1980. It was not set up as a trap but came in handy.

Am I a conspiracy theorist when I say that anybody could dress and kit out like a paparazzi on a motorbike, drive the Princess's car into the Alma tunnel where the cameras were turned the wrong way round? From what I see globalresearch provides additional information and interprets them differently from the official line. If I do not believe something, I can fire up a search engine. 2001:8003:AC60:1400:31C2:2914:FFD6:C99C (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)