Chomsky's Follies

May 9, 2011

The professor's pronouncements about Osama Bin Laden are offensive and ignorant.
By Christopher Hitchens

"Anybody visiting the Middle East in the last decade has had the experience: meeting the hoarse and aggressive person who first denies that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center and then proceeds to describe the attack as a justified vengeance for decades of American imperialism."

Read more (Slate)


Not at all; Chimpsky should focus on the only thing he is good at is linguistics; he has absolutely no credibility or knowledge on politics and should leave it up to the big boys. He actually seems to be suffering from schizophrenia or some other delusional personality disorder.

Roba said...

A desprate attempt on Hitch's part.

1stLT.L.Diablo said...

Look, Chomsky lays out a much larger and more nuanced argument than Hitchens admits to. He does this often. Second, Mike Moore is a fool and to even compare him to Chomsky is retarded.

Chomksy rightly points out the double standard of US foreign policy and the philosophic substrate that sanctions it. We think we can do whatever the fuck we like and then go about doing exactly that. Is the US secular and more civilized than much of the 3rd world? Yes. Can we invade Iraq to depose Saddam, in my opinion, yes? Can we assassinate terrorists and religious nuts who plan murders? Sure can. But this is not ALL we do-- we go much much further, and Hitchens seems helplessly obtuse on this point.

The US has been so deep in innocent blood for so long (e.g., Vietnam, Central America, Africa, Middle East, that it can not claim to taken seriously along moral lines merely because it has a secular constitution and is NOW (finally) actually fighting a right-wing, religious fundamentalist, death-cult. Maybe if we hadn't been murdering secular leftists (e.g., Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador, for so fucking long, we all could rally 'round the flag on this shit. But some of us are goddamn tired of the bullshit.

This country is run by the corporations, and their interests get first servings (and last). This is a demonstrable fact. Reading Manufacturing Consent might drive this home to anyone needing proof (theoretical and empirical).

So, suspicion, might just be the best stance to take vis-a-vis US foreign policy, and critiquing its hypocrisy is not tantamount to making hysterical claims about Osama Bin Laden's 'innocence'. I imagine if one read Chomksy's actual quote one would see the distinction lost on the Hitch.

I disagree with Chomksy on Iraq mostly, and agree with Hitchens... but jesus christmas, the US is no angel and we still act is a very sinister manner more often than not. Even when we do good (eliminating Saddam for example) we seems to figure out a way to do evil (legalized torture, suspension of habeas corpus, illegal wire-tapping, etc etc). And this is because the US is ruled by venal, evil corporate fucks who do right mainly by accident (and military intervention is Iraq is right by my view), and really are only concerned with controlling the world and enriching themselves in a very stupid, myopic, fiduciary way. It is evil and it is boring, and Hitchens should be against it with a little more ooommph! Like Chomksy is...

Rokart said...

poorly written and ridiculous. and I like you.

1stLt.L.Diablo said...

Have you ever even read Manufacturing Consent? It's one of the most salient media and foreign policy critiques extant. Don't think so-- then offer a rejoinder to it in detail so we can see how stupid you are.

Please, do not be an ass, Chomksy is wrong on many things, but to claim he has "no credibility or knowledge on politics" is asinine. What a tool you are...

Keith said...

The USA isn't perfect. But then, how do you think the Chinese or the Russians or the Saudis would behave if they were biggest superpower on the planet?

Jon said...

A Few Words On Christopher Hitchens’ Fondness for Noam Chomsky:

1stLT.L.Diablo said...

And why doesn't Hitch mention the Bosch case? It is perfectly reasonable to say that the US harbors terrorists... why do we get a free pass of this shit, with all manner of excuse making for our deals with these killers, and other countries get marked as 'terror states'? Oh, right-- because we are fucking hypocrites. Got it. If Hitchens would just admit this shit, and then go on to say, "but we still need to do some house cleaning abroad so drop the 82nd airborne into X", then I'd respect it. But he ignores the obvious moral implications-- because to call for airstrikes (which Cuba has the moral right to do if we apply the Bush doctrine) on DC would interfere with his chemo I suspect. Lol.

I adore the Hitch, and agree with him on Iraq-- but Chomksy aint wrong either.

P.s. Michael Moore is retarded. QED

celeritas3d said...

Excellent article, Hitch should try responding to this instead of bothering the older, wiser, smarter Chomsky. the sickness is getting to him, hopefully he doesn't convert anytime soon with this kind of immaturity.

He's smart, but always been immature, especially with his arrogance, smoking, and excessive drinking.

The later has caught up with him. but now, will he keep his dignity or attack a man he once praised.

Thanks for the link

Jon Smith said...

i posted a rebuttal to hitchens' attack on chomsky, but i can't seem to find it on the thread. here it is again, it's worth reading as it deals with hitchens' arguments quite head on:

the title is "A Few Words on Christopher Hitchens' Fondness for Noam Chomsky":

Caramx said...

I like Christopher Hitchens but sometimes he goes overboard in certain areas and may soon deserve the same dismissal he so callously gave Gore Vidal.

What Chomsky said exactly can be found here:

How accurate this is depends on Werner Daum's statement (as credible a source as any)that the Sudan attack
"probably led to tens of thousands of deaths" of Sudanese civilians." found here:

Sudan’s details were somewhat suppressed. Surprise, surprise. It’s hard to believe
the Chomsky critics here have complete
trust in the most likely suppressed UN and US government media statements on the matter. Wikipedia for instance, with no source to back it up, of course) says only one man was killed in the Sudan attacks.  Yeah. Sure.  



Aaron Carine said...

Werner Daum isn't as credible a source as any. He said that his tens of thousands figure was a "guess" and he had no data or research to back it up. In fact,no one who has made the claim of tens of thousands of deaths has provided a shred of evidence for it.


Christopher reads from Hitch-22: A Memoir