You are just writing lots of text twice without touching my arguments -- from a previously unused account. You seem like a troll.

I'll go over my original simple points about your video again, then I'll stop feeding you.

>>if you didn't mean to refer to chomsky as a "propagandist" then you obviously shouldn't have used that term.

AGAIN: "Propaganda" is not a good term for (quote of me) "non-serious argument to influence opinions"? What other term would you suggest?

>>you claim chomsky could have saved 1000s of lives if he discussed sudan. i have no idea where you came up with these numbers.

You do know, you're trolling. Your still haven't written anything relevant to the original simple point:

A) 5:45, where he explained why he criticizes Israel more than all the other places which are much worse. "He can influence more", because he is American.

That is just not true. It doesn't explain his lack of attention on Sudan, which lacked attention from the international community, when murder/rape by the millions were taking place. If someone with Chomsky's weight had started to make speeches, it would have added needed attention. And probably saved, at a minimum, thousands of lives.

>>where did chomsky discuss sadat and the plo in the vid? can you give me a rough time in the vid? i watched at the 1:00 mark and didn't see that mentioned. i'm unsure about what i'm disagreeing with chomsky.

You have still not addressed my second point:

B) At one minute, Chomsky explains that there is no need to consider the existential threat, because Israel ignored a peace offer from Egypt in 1971... (Despite that Israel has peace with Egypt since a few decades, anyway!)

I'll go over this a THIRD time:

At one minute, the journalist talks about the literal threat to existence -- start listening at 45 seconds if you really don't get it. When discussing the threat to existence of Israel, the interviewer says: "If you listen to what [Hamas, etc] say, there is an immediate threat to Israel".

Chomsky doesn't touch that or the history of wars trying to eradicate Israel etc -- he starts talking about an Egypt peace offer in 1971!!

(That is both damn long ago to judge a present time -- and also ignoring that none of us know how serious that peace offer was thought to be. Which is a side point.)

My point is that Chomsky didn't touch the status of being under an existential threat. Then I discussed what that means:

Democracies tend to go insane over terrorism and throw out human rights (GB, USA, Germany, Israel, etc) -- with Israel we talk about an existential threat… [Edit: Which is obviously factors of ten worse than terrorism. Just to be clear]

Israel is the only present democracy with [an existential threat], but look at different internment camps for civilians in the second world war (including Sweden, which threw lots of communists in jail because they took order from Moscow -- and Sweden wasn't even in the war!).

To be absolute clear: When discussing a country's behaviour, you really should consider the situation(!). Israel doesn't seem extreme to me, compared to e.g. Sweden or any other democracy.

Was THAT really so hard to understand, that you had to write walls of text twice? Hardly.