Christopher Hitchens on Chomsky and Bin Laden

[TruthersLie]

I just came across this article in slate.com

http://www.slate.com/id/2293541/

Very interesting Chomsky's repeating of trutherlies, distortions and lack of research.

It's no criticism of Chomsky to say that his analysis is inconsistent with that of other individuals and factions who essentially think that 9/11 was a hoax. However, it is remarkable that he should write as if the mass of evidence against Bin Laden has never been presented or could not have been brought before a court. This form of 9/11 denial doesn't trouble to conceal an unstated but self-evident premise, which is that the United States richly deserved the assault on its citizens and its civil society. After all, as Chomsky phrases it so tellingly, our habit of "naming our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Tomahawk … [is] as if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes 'Jew' and 'Gypsy.' " Perhaps this is not so true in the case of Tomahawk, which actually is the name of a weapon, but the point is at least as good as any other he makes.

 

[Jono]

Hmm, well Chomsky loves being a 'contrarian' at times. I do know he's got little but scoff for truthers.

 

[TruthersLie]

Jono.

I understand that. Notice the Chomsky quote at the end of my sig.

 

[TraneWreck]

Let me offer this recommendation to all my fellow members of the left: let Chomsky go.

He writes provocative, powerful pieces that are critical of existing power structures, but he's randomly reliable. He distorts, quote mines, and outright lies about claims he's made in the past. He's one of the most important thinkers of the 20th century for his work the philosophy of language, but he is not a reliable source of information.

He essentially fell into a trap of developing a theory he was proud of (the propaganda model of media) then contorts evidence to fit the claim.

He was an important anti-war voice during Vietnam, but pissed that away by defending and distorting reality in favor of Pol Pot. He was right to be critical of Reagan and our foreign policy endeavors in Latin America in the 80's, but so much of his work is littered with distortions that his work is almost useless. His arguments are often strong on their own, then he tries to mash his criticisms into his broad theory about corporate propaganda and it turns into nonsense.

I would say that Chomsky is maybe 60-70% reliable. I find myself agreeing with a lot of what he writes in that range, but the 20-30% of BS means that he can't be defended as a scholar. It's best to just take an idea of his that seems solid, and then make sure to independently varify all sources. But he has and will continue to say really stupid ****. I used to fall in the trap of defending him on the stupid **** because I admired the 60-70% quality work. It ends up being a waste of time.

 

[Oystein]

Hmm, well Chomsky loves being a 'contrarian' at times. I do know he's got little but scoff for truthers.

As does Hitchens, and the two have been going antler to antler since at least the run-up to the Iraq war: Chomsky, predictably, pulled out his usual arsenal of anti-imperialistic dialectics, while Hitchens, more surprisingly, flung himself from Trotskyist powerhorse to neo-con war monger and perhaps the mightiest wordsmith among Bush's supporters.

Any exchange between Chomsky and Hitchens must be viewed in light of this rather bitter battle of inellectual egos.

 

[Brainster]

Chomsky's blind spot is that he always ignores the other side's actions. If he were to write a history of World War II, he would talk about how we colluded with the British to launch an unprovoked attack on France, and then dropped the bomb on Japan because they looked different from us.

So it is with this assault on Bin Laden; Chomsky professes himself unable to find any proof that Osama was behind 9-11. Either he hasn't looked or he has studiously averted his gaze; given his history I suspect the latter.

 

[Jono]

As does Hitchens, and the two have been going antler to antler since at least the run-up to the Iraq war: Chomsky, predictably, pulled out his usual arsenal of anti-imperialistic dialectics, while Hitchens, more surprisingly, flung himself from Trotskyist powerhorse to neo-con war monger and perhaps the mightiest wordsmith among Bush's supporters.

Any exchange between Chomsky and Hitchens must be viewed in light of this rather bitter battle of inellectual egos.

While I haven't followed the exchange inbetween the two that closely, I do know that the above is fitting for their individual behaviour respectively. In the long run though, I tend to find Chomsky more entertaining.

 

[Jono]

So it is with this assault on Bin Laden; Chomsky professes himself unable to find any proof that Osama was behind 9-11. Either he hasn't looked or he has studiously averted his gaze; given his history I suspect the latter.

Indeed. A few years ago we had some correspondence regarding the greek alphabetet, the A and B controversies etc. In the middle of it he stated that the inquiries are pointless, and wondered why I asked him about the debates, since it wasn't his topic of expertise and that he hadn't familiarised himself with the controversy all too well. He chatted away plenty the first few letters though on the matter. I did find that sudden turn a bit surprising myself, however his clarifications previously given had been helpful. But he clearly had no desire for an argumentative take on them. Or... he felt it wasn't worth his time.

 

[Jono]

As for Hitchens. Somehow he's become controversial, popular and noteworthy. Now, I'm not saying he's an average critic, he's not. But... he's definently not a noteworthy intellectual imo. I always used to think other skeptics considered him to be that, because he was a skeptic as well and made waves.

 

[TruthersLie]

Jono.

I'll agree about hitchens... he is a raging drunk. That really seems to be his "charm." He can write very well, argues passionately but most of his diatribes appear to be fueled by his ego (plus a nice stiff drink or ten).

 

[Pardalis]

I doubt he drinks anymore, since he's having chemotherapy.

 

[alienentity]

Chomsky's blind spot is that he always ignores the other side's actions. If he were to write a history of World War II, he would talk about how we colluded with the British to launch an unprovoked attack on France, and then dropped the bomb on Japan because they looked different from us.

So it is with this assault on Bin Laden; Chomsky professes himself unable to find any proof that Osama was behind 9-11. Either he hasn't looked or he has studiously averted his gaze; given his history I suspect the latter.

Is there any direct evidence that OBL was behind the 9/11 attacks?

ETA don't get me wrong, I accept the he was one of the leaders of AQ, and AQ carried out the attacks. I just don't know how directly he might have been involved in their planning.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Is there any direct evidence that OBL was behind the 9/11 attacks?

ETA don't get me wrong, I accept the he was one of the leaders of AQ, and AQ carried out the attacks. I just don't know how directly he might have been involved in their planning.

Mike W. posted on this before:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2242004&postcount=195

There's more. As I've mentioned before, some of the publicly available books on Bin Laden (Bergen's The Osama Bin Laden I Knew, Wright's The Looming Tower, McDermott's Perfect Soldiers, etc.) have noted that while he wasn't hands-on, daily involved by any stretch of the imagination (Khalid Shiek Mohammed was the guy who did that), he did dig in and directly add to the plan. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but to the best of my memory:

• The Twin Towers themselves were specifically selected by Bin Laden.
• He personally added some members to the hijacking teams.
• He personally selected Atta to be the group leader in the US.

But, the problem is, I haven't retraced the evidence from those books' citations, so I can't quite cite the original evidence behind them. Those cites are there and available, but unfortunately, all I'm able to do is point you in a direction, not provide a nice, packaged answer. Sorry about that, but I think it'll help some in tracking down the answer you're looking for.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Oh, I forgot to add something. This is merely a summary of points (it's literally titled "Factsheet on Bin Laden"), but it's also a bunch of pointers in various directions:
http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/press/state/archive/august/sd4_8-15.htm

 

[TraneWreck]

Is there any direct evidence that OBL was behind the 9/11 attacks?

ETA don't get me wrong, I accept the he was one of the leaders of AQ, and AQ carried out the attacks. I just don't know how directly he might have been involved in their planning.

To keep it as simple as possible, any member of a criminal conspiracy is guilty of all acts performed in furtherance of that conspiracy.

It's clear that bin Laden supported KSM and the others in planning, preparing, and otherwise prepping for the attacks. He is therefore guilty of all crimes he helped enable.

If you and I get together to rob a bank, and I provide you with a gun and a car, I'm legally responsible for the robbery even if I don't go along.

 

[Brainster]

Is there any direct evidence that OBL was behind the 9/11 attacks?

ETA don't get me wrong, I accept the he was one of the leaders of AQ, and AQ carried out the attacks. I just don't know how directly he might have been involved in their planning.

KSM came up with the initial plan which Osama approved, financed, and for which he provided the muscle hijackers. There are videos of Osama with some of the hijackers, and there is Osama's statement that he thought the buildings might collapse down to the point of impact.

 

[alienentity]

To keep it as simple as possible, any member of a criminal conspiracy is guilty of all acts performed in furtherance of that conspiracy.

It's clear that bin Laden supported KSM and the others in planning, preparing, and otherwise prepping for the attacks. He is therefore guilty of all crimes he helped enable.

If you and I get together to rob a bank, and I provide you with a gun and a car, I'm legally responsible for the robbery even if I don't go along.

I appreciate the analogy, but I don't think we need it. And I actually don't think your analogy is correct, btw.

Another interesting question is which crimes Bin Laden was indicted for. I know he had been indicted in 1998 by Grand Juries for both the bombing of a Saudi National Guard training center and the US Embassy bombings elsewhere. But was he ever indicted for the 9/11 attacks?

 

[Brown]

I'm disappointed in Hitchens. He's sick, I know, but come on. Chomsky is too easy a target.

 

[njslim]

Chomsky should stick to talking to chimps - have a lot in common...