Christopher Hitchens Rips Noam Chomsky's Osama Bin Laden Article To Shreds
Comments (16)
Noam Chomsky (Photo by Andrew Rusk, Creative Commons)
In a scathing rebuttal in Slate earlier this week, Christopher Hitchens ripped Chomsky's piece to shreds. Here's an excerpt:
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. This cognitive dissonance—to give it a polite designation—does not always take that precise form. Sometimes the same person who hails the bravery of al-Qaida's martyrs also believes that the Jews planned the "operation." As far as I know, only leading British "Truther" David Shayler, a former intelligence agent who also announced his own divinity, has denied that the events of Sept. 11, 2001, took place at all....
Read Hitchens' rebuttal here.
Comments
Nin Jiom Pei Pa Koa (http://ninjiom-hk.cwahi.net/) may be another solution to hoarse and sore throat. i know a lot of people use it, its also non alcoholic, though it's effectiveness is not as good as alcohol based cough medicine, but it's still good to use on not so serious sore or hoarse throat. Hope you are getting well soon!!!
The only thing Hitchens tore to shreds is his reputation.
Here's another fun, related read: http://www.counterpunch.org/mendenhall05132011.html
Chomsky is an old bat.
"Unarmed victim"?
This moral relativism masquerading as redical thinking is so lame and passe.
Unlike Bin Laden, Bush never ordered the annihilation of innocent people.
If Chomsky were a judge he would give someone life for DUI, and give someone a ticket for premeditated murder, because the latter was "understandable".
The excerpt you selected has absolutely nothing to do with any of Chomsky's claims, and if you read both in full you'll see that Hitchens is merely juxtaposing brief snippets of Chomsky with conspiracy theorists in attempt discredit him without actually taking on any of his arguments. The reason being, any objective person can see that Chomsky is just stating the obvious.
I have visited the Middle East in the last decade and had no such experience. Apparently anybody visiting there has. I must have missed that guy.
This is totally a straw man argument from Hitchens. He has a point. But his point really has nothing to do with what Chomsky said. His point is a broader argument about the Middle East, and whether that is true or not, its certainly easier to go up against that straw man than Chomsky himself.
Why do you allow vulgar language on a comment? I thought that was forbidden.
yeah, I am really not sure what "cognitive dissonance" even means... oh my, such a scathing review! ouch!
How did he "rip" Chomsky? He misread or fabricated all of the positions he attacked. Absurd.
Rips? Wow, sure asswipe. Fuck Hitchens - fucking war monger. And fuck this tea baggin website.
He certainly could have chosen a better example than "Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him.." Most Americans would probably be cheering! As for Hitchens vs. Chomsky - Hitchens is a washed up alcoholic who supported the illegal, incredibly wasteful, and massive blunder called the Iraq invasion and occupation. Chomsky is a genius who constantly points out the inconvenient and uncomfortable truth.