News:

In case of downtime/other tech emergencies, you can relatively quickly get in touch with Asmodean Prime by email.

Main Menu

Hitchens v. Chomsky

Started by Sophus, May 18, 2011, 09:05:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Sophus

Anyone following the recent exchange between Christopher Hitchens and Noam Chomksy over the bin Laden death?

Quote from: HitchensAnybody 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.

Chomsky has since responded - well - sort of...

http://www.dailyhitchens.com/2011/05/noam-chomsky-responds-to-hitchens.html

Here is the original Chomsky article.

It's interesting to me that within the "atheist circle" we don't talk too much about what Hitchens writes that doesn't concern religion. As another has noted Hitchens appears to be twisting Chomsky's real views.

QuoteThe comment, of course, is inserted for the express purpose of caricaturing Chomsky's argument and confusing readers into believing that Chomsky subscribes to the fantastical lie that 9-11 was "justified."

And....

QuoteHitchens notes that the evidence against Bin Laden is built upon such incontrovertible foundations that, to even suggest that the US' public pronouncements regarding OBL's role in 9-11 should have been aired in court, with the criminal present, is sheer lunacy. He poses a string of rhetorical questions, asking whether the Professor has bothered reading the 9-11 Commission's findings, the journalistic reporting of Peter Bergen, Lawrence Wright and others, and taken the time to videos in which Bin Laden purportedly appears with some of the 9-11 hijackers, all of which convincingly demonstrate OBL's exact role in 9-11. Hitchens fails to comprehend that it is perfectly unnecessary to speculate about these matters (although I suspect that Chomsky intimately familiar with all of these evidences), as none of them lead to the conclusion he hopes for: namely that vigilante-style execution is justified.

I can't be too sure though. I don't follow Chomsky as well as Hitchens. But I can't imagine why someone who does wouldn't want to represent his views accurately.
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

Sophus

Ooooh, it gets juicier!

Quote from: HitchensNow to Chomsky's response to my response. In some more extended remarks that have since been published, he appears to accept (as he always had previously) the responsibility of bin Laden. He just doesn't accept, as evidence, bin Laden's claims of responsibility. Fine by me: we can go back to where we were before, and debate more directly the larger question of whether Bush or bin Laden is the Nazi. We've both published plenty on this already.

However, in a recent appearance at Syracuse, Chomsky made two direct accusations against me (apart, that is, from the accusations of my being a hysterical ranter and Stalinist commissar-lookalike whose opinions merit no consideration). In plain terms, he first said that I had accused him in Slate of saying that Clinton's attack on Sudan was worse than 9/11. He then added that while he had not said this, I had! I was somewhat amazed at the sniggering applause which this earned him, since a glance at my Slate column will show that I specifically did not make that charge. As to the idea that I have myself described Clinton's attack as worse than bin Laden's, I have never believed or written this, and cannot even think of a remark of mine that could have been misinterpreted to make it seem otherwise. Chomsky claimed to have quoted me on this before: I invite him to produce the reference or to withdraw both allegations.

Nobody's going to take any sides?  ;D
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

xSilverPhinx

Heh...I'm going to sit this one out.

Though I like Hitchens, Chomsky and his views merit more respect, I think.

I mean, from the articles you posted, it looks more like Hitchens is trying to challenge Chomsky for the sake of challenging Chomsky rather than actually discuss terrorism and who is the bigger terrorist.
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


ThinkAnarchy

I'm just going to throw this out there. I responded yesterday, but deleted my post because I was all over the place.

I remember reading at some point that Hitchens made his past relationship with Chomsky seem more intimate than it actually was. Supposedly Hitchens made it appear as if they were good friend and some point and than parted ways, whereas Chomsky claims they met a couple of times and that was about it.

I hope that helps a bit. I have no links and don't feel like taking the time to search for the source I got that from.
"He that displays too often his wife and his wallet is in danger of having both of them borrowed." -Ben Franklin

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -credited to Franklin, but not sure.