Christopher Hitchens Vs. Noam Chomsky on Osama Bin Laden

Hitchens Photo: Trockennasenaffe (CC) / Chomsky Photo: Duncan Rawlinson (CC)

Hitchens Photo: Trockennasenaffe (CC) / Chomsky Photo: Duncan Rawlinson (CC)

Christopher Hitchens takes issue with Noam Chomsky’s recent Guernica article in Slate:

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. (It was apparently by means of a hologram that the widespread delusion was created on television.)

In his recent article for Guernica magazine, however, professor Noam Chomsky decides to leave that central question open. We have no more reason to credit Osama Bin Laden’s claim of responsibility, he states, than we would have to believe Chomsky’s own claim to have won the Boston Marathon.

Read: Noam Chomsky’s recent Guernica article

Read: Christopher Hitchens’ recent Slate article

, , , , , , ,

  • dracon

    Gewalt macht frei!! Heil Hitchens

  • dracon

    Gewalt macht frei!! Heil Hitchens

  • RoboKy

    He speaks of cognitive dissonance, when he himself seems to being constantly suffering from it.

  • Robo Ky

    He speaks of cognitive dissonance, when he himself seems to being constantly suffering from it.

  • Voidthought

    It’s my opinion that 9/11 wasn’t and isn’t as bad as our Corporations raping and stripping resources from foreign lands and leaving the natives to deal with a wasteland afterwards. Not to mention shitting in our own backyard with frakking and nuclear testing(over 1000 nukes tested n US soil) to name a few. There seems to be a grandiose hypocrisy in our righteous “land of the free” mentality which supercedes our ability to grasp our effect on other people in less pliable conditions. This article didn’t really disprove or prove anything other than how to slander a person based off of emotional resonance.

  • Voidthought

    It’s my opinion that 9/11 wasn’t and isn’t as bad as our Corporations raping and stripping resources from foreign lands and leaving the natives to deal with a wasteland afterwards. Not to mention shitting in our own backyard with frakking and nuclear testing(over 1000 nukes tested n US soil) to name a few. There seems to be a grandiose hypocrisy in our righteous “land of the free” mentality which supercedes our ability to grasp our effect on other people in less pliable conditions. This article didn’t really disprove or prove anything other than how to slander a person based off of emotional resonance.

  • Kali23Yuga

    Oh boy, stop the religiophobia already.
    I can’t go anywhere on the freaking internet without some atheist
    popping up : “Oh so you believe in God? Well, let me tell you something
    about logic”.
    Yeah we know, it’s rediculous some of us believe in an ark and take metaphors and allegories literally.  But what are you gonna do?  Argue religion out of existence?  That’s as much wasting your life as praying to an Abrahamic deity.

    • justagirl

      who are you talking to? 

      • Kali23Yuga

        Hitchens of course.  I know it wasn’t ‘on topic’, but everything about this guy ( even this article, if you read between the lines ) stems from his religiophobia.

  • Kali23Yuga

    Oh boy, stop the religiophobia already.
    I can’t go anywhere on the freaking internet without some atheist
    popping up : “Oh so you believe in God? Well, let me tell you something
    about logic”.
    Yeah we know, it’s rediculous some of us believe in an ark and take metaphors and allegories literally.  But what are you gonna do?  Argue religion out of existence?  That’s as much wasting your life as praying to an Abrahamic deity.

  • Vitamin

    Oh Christopher, go and read Chomsky properly.  You’ve pitted yourself against this man because you are, and have always been, on the deluded side of this “War on Terror”.  And here you are, at the bitter end, your intellectual vanity still trumping your intellectual courage.  You simply cannot admit you were wrong.

    Neither you nor Chomsky has many years left.  The difference is that Chomsky will be using his years to fight establishment power and propaganda, while you use yours to get the last word.

  • Vitamin

    Oh Christopher, go and read Chomsky properly.  You’ve pitted yourself against this man because you are, and have always been, on the deluded side of this “War on Terror”.  And here you are, at the bitter end, your intellectual vanity still trumping your intellectual courage.  You simply cannot admit you were wrong.

    Neither you nor Chomsky has many years left.  The difference is that Chomsky will be using his years to fight establishment power and propaganda, while you use yours to get the last word.

  • justagirl

    who are you talking to? 

  • justagirl

    i like what i’ve read about hitchens and from him so far.  i have never read a book by him though.  does anyone know what hitchens calls his best book? 

    • leif

      Prometheus Rising. He wrote it under his old pen name ‘Robert Anton Wilson’

      • anechoic

         LOL! excellent retort – well done :)

      • Elwood

        Would you care to elaborate? I’d love to fully grasp the humor here. Please know I’m not being sarcastic or anything like it: I really am completely lost! I have most certainly read Prometheus Rising but haven’t read anything by Hitchens (besides the occasional article by -or about- him)

        Thanks in advance!

      • justagirl

        ha!  i see your point.  thanks.

      • Alan Lee

        I know the New Inquisition is about Hitchens but I did not know Prometheus Rising is by Hitchens. 

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XZESTAFSJXFNWIOW7BYQ7YCI6Q Rant93

        The internet is a sarcasm filter, so I need clarification too.  As a big fan of RAW and not so much for the attitude displayed by Hitchens in this article, I’m not sure what you are saying here unless it’s to steer justagirl to a better author.

  • justagirl

    i like what i’ve read about hitchens and from him so far.  i have never read a book by him though.  does anyone know what hitchens calls his best book? 

  • emperorreagan

    I’m not sure how Christiopher Hitchens came to be regarded as a “leading intellectual.”

    He is, to put it as insultingly as possible, one of those atheists in a foxhole who cried out to god when the shooting started.  In the face of a challenge to his notions of the order of the world, he abandoned the left and latched onto Paul Wolfowitz’s cock and started guzzling all the neocon bullshit he could get.

    I personally agree with Chomsky – the US government probably would have had a hard time convicting Osama bin Laden in a fair trial.  A lot of evidence is tainted by illegal detentions and torture.  Some of it, like his public boasting, would be pretty useless in an actual criminal case.  The government would have the choice between a rigged show trial or indefinite detention.  Either would have furthered the myth of bin Laden and put the US in an even less favorable light.    

    Another reason that it was expedient to kill him rather than try him was because he was on the CIA’s payroll at one point and they certainly don’t want anyone dredging up the illegal and unconscionable acts that the US was party to in fighting the Soviets.

    I also think (and mostly unrelated to this article except in continuing to discuss Osama) that the failure of the White House to get a story straight before presenting it to the world will ultimately increase the myth and influence of Osama bin Laden.  In the final telling, after they floated all sorts of fanciful accounts, the US sent in an 80-member strong commando team and killed an unarmed man in the face of all sorts of blather about justice and trials. They should have killed everyone in the house, taken the files, and burned it down so that they could tell whatever fanciful story they wanted.

    • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

      Likewise. Hitchens brain is slipping. On atheism…he’s still a pro and well remembered and respected…but I cannot recall a single other subject for which he is well regarded as a major voice. Trying to pin down Chomsky’s vague statements as if they’re absolutist assertions…then use their new status as absolutes to prove their dissonance…is the hallmark of amateurs who dodge the point and just try to cloud the air enough to escape with their own BS intact.

      As for Chomsky…is U.S. policy largely to blame for the eventual attack of 9/11 (especially considering repeated attempts to blow up the same buildings over the past 20+ years) as well as much of the rise in Middle Eastern terrorism? Yeah…pretty much. Does that mean that an alternative view of Osama Bin Laden’s role invalidates the previous assessment? No…not in the slightest. There are countless plausible possibilities…all reasonably valid in light of the deliberate obfuscation, prevarication and seemingly inexplicable incompetence from the US gov. Pushing forward multiple possible scenarios, each based on unanswered questions that leave behind sticky implications, thereby pushing others to ask the same questions in the hope of an eventual answer…is heroic…not dissonant.

  • emperorreagan

    I’m not sure how Christiopher Hitchens came to be regarded as a “leading intellectual.”

    He is, to put it as insultingly as possible, one of those atheists in a foxhole who cried out to god when the shooting started.  In the face of a challenge to his notions of the order of the world, he abandoned the left and latched onto Paul Wolfowitz’s cock and started guzzling all the neocon bullshit he could get.

    I personally agree with Chomsky – the US government probably would have had a hard time convicting Osama bin Laden in a fair trial.  A lot of evidence is tainted by illegal detentions and torture.  Some of it, like his public boasting, would be pretty useless in an actual criminal case.  The government would have the choice between a rigged show trial or indefinite detention.  Either would have furthered the myth of bin Laden and put the US in an even less favorable light.    

    Another reason that it was expedient to kill him rather than try him because he was on the CIA’s payroll at one point and they certainly don’t want anyone dredging up the illegal and unconscionable acts that the US was party to in fighting the Soviets.

    I also think (and mostly unrelated to this article except in continuing to discuss Osama) that the failure of the White House to get a story straight before presenting it to the world will ultimately increase the myth and influence of Osama bin Laden.  In the final telling, after they floated all sorts of fanciful accounts, the US sent in an 80-member strong commando team and killed an unarmed man. They should have killed everyone in the house, taken the files, and burned it down so that they could tell whatever fanciful story they wanted.

  • leif

    Prometheus Rising. He wrote it under his old pen name ‘Robert Anton Wilson’

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    Likewise. Hitchens brain is slipping. On atheism…he’s still a pro and well remembered and respected…but I cannot recall a single other subject for which he is well regarded as a major voice. Trying to pin down Chomsky’s vague statements as if they’re absolutist assertions…then use their new status as absolutes to prove their dissonance…is the hallmark of amateurs who dodge the point and just try to cloud the air enough to escape with their own BS intact.

    As for Chomsky…is U.S. policy largely to blame for the eventual attack of 9/11 (especially considering repeated attempts to blow up the same buildings over the past 20+ years) as well as much of the rise in Middle Eastern terrorism? Yeah…pretty much. Does that mean that an alternative view of Osama Bin Laden’s role invalidates the previous assessment? No…not in the slightest. 

  • Anonymous

     LOL! excellent retort – well done :)

  • Elwood

    Would you care to elaborate? I’d love to fully grasp the humor here. Please know I’m not being sarcastic or anything like it: I really am completely lost! I have most certainly read Prometheus Rising but haven’t read anything by Hitchens (besides the occasional article by -or about- him)

    Thanks in advance!

  • Happypedro

    Christopher Hitchens.  Yuck.
     

  • Happypedro

    Christopher Hitchens.  Yuck.
     

    • Voidthought

      He looks like Darth Vader without his mask doesn’t he? 

  • justagirl

    ha!  i see your point.  thanks.

  • Anonymous

    Hitchens has always been a cognitively dissonant character himself. I found it incredibly strange when he suddenly started kissing the arse of Bush and Blair, his right-wing opinions don’t seem to match the rest of his rhetoric.

    I lost some respect for Chomsky regarding his early opinions on 9/11 truth, I thought he said a few absurd things, but he’s won me back with his more recent comments on the subject. Here is a man who isn’t afraid to change his stance and opinions when presented with new data or simply as the result of new avenues of thought. These are characteristics of a true intellectual and philosopher.

     

  • Anonymous

    Hitchens has always been a cognitively dissonant character himself. I found it incredibly strange when he suddenly started kissing the arse of Bush and Blair, his right-wing opinions don’t seem to match the rest of his rhetoric.

    I lost some respect for Chomsky regarding his early opinions on 9/11 truth, I thought he said a few absurd things, but he’s won me back with his more recent comments on the subject. Here is a man who isn’t afraid to change his stance and opinions when presented with new data or simply as the result of new avenues of thought. These are characteristics of a true intellectual and philosopher.

     

  • BrianApocalypse

    Hitchens has always been a cognitively dissonant character himself. I found it incredibly strange when he suddenly started kissing the arse of Bush and Blair, his right-wing opinions don’t seem to match the rest of his rhetoric.

    I lost some respect for Chomsky regarding his early opinions on 9/11 truth, I thought he said a few absurd things, but he’s won me back with his more recent comments on the subject. Here is a man who isn’t afraid to change his stance and opinions when presented with new data or simply as the result of new avenues of thought. These are characteristics of a true intellectual and philosopher.

     

    • chubby

       well some people realize science and history and whatnot are dynamic and subject to new studies, information, technology, etc….

  • Kali23Yuga

    Hitchens of course.  I know it wasn’t ‘on topic’, but everything about this guy ( even this article, if you read between the lines ) stems from his religiophobia.

  • Alan Lee

    I know the New Inquisition is about Hitchens but I did not know Prometheus Rising is by Hitchens. 

  • Alan Lee

    I know the New Inquisition is about Hitchens but I did not know Prometheus Rising is by Hitchens. 

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XZESTAFSJXFNWIOW7BYQ7YCI6Q Rant93

    The internet is a sarcasm filter, so I need clarification too.  As a big fan of RAW and not so much for the attitude displayed by Hitchens in this article, I’m not sure what you are saying here unless it’s to steer justagirl to a better author.

  • Ablortez

    Why is this crap from this craphead on disinfo?

  • Ablortez

    Why is this crap from this craphead on disinfo?

  • Anonymous

    Some of the comments being dropped here about Hitchens are just bitter, reactionary and ignorant. You can say what you will about his less than palatable opinions about Bin Laden and the US wars in the middle east. I disagree with him on almost everything relating to politics and foreign policy. However, what you cannot do is ignore the fact that he is an outstanding writer who hasn’t exclusively written about his views on US policy in the middle east. He’s clever, funny and has a mastery of language that seems to be rare these days. I’d much rather read or listen to his articulation of opinions different than my own than say, those of the current contenders for the Republican nomination. Not everyone with a different opinion deserves to have their credit as an intellectual stripped away.

  • bookwench

    Some of the comments being dropped here about Hitchens are just bitter, reactionary and ignorant. You can say what you will about his less than palatable opinions about Bin Laden and the US wars in the middle east. I disagree with him on almost everything relating to politics and foreign policy. However, what you cannot do is ignore the fact that he is an outstanding writer who hasn’t exclusively written about his views on US policy in the middle east. He’s clever, funny and has a mastery of language that seems to be rare these days. I’d much rather read or listen to his articulation of opinions different than my own than say, those of the current contenders for the Republican nomination. Not everyone with a different opinion deserves to have their credit as an intellectual stripped away.

    • Lisa

      @ bookwench: Your point is a fair one in and of itself. The problem people have with Hitchens in this regard is that he is not only lying – he knows he is lying – knows it fine well. He may be an intellectual but he is also a cynic, shopist and a shill

      Hitchens writes disparagingly against what he terms ‘moral equivalence,’ the alternative being the belief that his side of the debate are right by virtue of who they are, rather than what they do. Were that in fact the case, then he would not need to produce such slander. He is effectively saying: We might have killed hundreds of thousands of Arabs since 9/11 – but our motives were good – just ask us and we’ll tell you. If you reject this view of the word then you are guilty of moral equivalence which is the hated notion that we should judge others by the same standards we apply to ourselves. And if you are a prominent enough exponent of this outrageous view then some establishment intellectual will start throwing flak. Let’s look at one at work.
       
      After deliberately misrepresenting the term (moral equivalence) in a shameful act of sophistry, Hitchens notes that it “might be a weak word here” because Chomsky actually argues that Bush’s “crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s.” Hitchens knows full well that this is not what the term moral equivalence refers to. It is not concerned with the end product. It is basically a disparaging term used against people like Chomsky who take the shocking view that we should all be judged by the same standards. When we do this, we find “uncontroversially” that President Bush’s “crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s.” The finding is certainly uncontroversial if we deem the killing of innocent civilians a crime. But what riles Hitchens is that this moral equivalence – or lack of hypocrisy – ignores one crucial fact: We are the goodies.
       
      We could focus on the deceitful question begging and backward reasoning inherent in this position, but such nuances would be lost upon Hitchen’s target audience who view international politics in the same way they view football: Support your team. No matter if your team happens to be full of hatchet men and the opposition side mostly young girls – you just don’t perceive, much less care about, their fouls. If that is the way you want to view the world, that’s up to you – but it’s not scholarship, it is soviet style journalism.
       
      Turning to Michael Moore, and in characteristically disingenuous style, Hitchens appears to argue that a person can be proved guilty without standing trial – a view more in line with bin Laden’s than the US constitution – but he anticipates this and attributes his view to Moore. It’s worth reading that section to see a charlatan at work.
       
      He continues on Chomsky “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.” But Chomsky, who incidentally considers it likely that bin Laden was behind 9/11, simply pointed out that 80 commandos ought to have been able to take an unarmed man alive and that he in fact did not have his day in court which – if captured by goodies –  he should have. Hitchens goes on to label this view a “form of 9/11 denial” (yes – seriously!) before descending into the gutter by inventing Chomsky’s “unstated but self-evident premise, which is that the United States richly deserved the assault on its citizens and its civil society.” If he bothered to digest what Chomsky writes Hitchens would search in vein until his dying days to find any such sentiment – which is a figment of his imagination. Chomsky is on record many times as condemning 9/11 as “an atrocity carried out with wicked and awesome cruelty” which “could never be justified.” Sadly Hitchens now seems to enjoy his sideline of throwing mud for corporate power.

      • emperorreagan

        I wouldn’t deny that Hitchens is, at times, a great writer and can be funny. 

        The problem is that he is, as you point out, a sophist.  That’s why I would never refer to him as an intellectual – I regard an intellectual as someone who typically makes studied, rational arguments.  That’s certainly not true of Hitchens in his foreign policy writing.  

        I haven’t read his writing on religion and atheism, so perhaps he is a less prone to making specious arguments there.  His public statements on that issue and some of the reviews I’ve read don’t really inspire enough confidence for me to consider reading his book, though.  Some of what I’ve heard him say is pretty funny, but I’m also not particularly interested in the anti-theist version of atheism he’s fond of – though at least it is consistent with his neo-conservative approach to foreign policy.

  • http://duncan.co Duncan

    Hi there,

    Thank you for using my photograph of Chomsky in this post!

    Please attribute the photograph to my Online Photography School and link to http://www.photographyicon.com/

    I have a little note about people using my images here:
    http://www.flickr.com/people/thelastminute

    Thank you!
     

  • http://duncan.co Duncan

    Hi there,

    Thank you for using my photograph of Chomsky in this post!

    Please attribute the photograph to my Online Photography School and link to http://www.photographyicon.com/

    I have a little note about people using my images here:
    http://www.flickr.com/people/thelastminute

    Thank you!
     

  • superfluous

    two intellectuals, one of which i almost too greatly respect, the other i rather grudgingly have to admit has on more than one occasion (two, to be precise) provided me with a useful insight – and i just can’t make up my mind which one of them looks more like a turtle..

  • superfluous

    two intellectuals, one of which i almost too greatly respect, the other i rather grudgingly have to admit has on more than one occasion (two, to be precise) provided me with a useful insight – and i just can’t make up my mind which one of them looks more like a turtle..

  • Ricky Jazzercise

     “We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic.”

    I personally would have called in sick the next day and partied my ass off. With Osama, I couldn’t really have cared less and changed the channel five seconds after the news interrupted The Simpsons.

  • Ricky Jazzercise

     “We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic.”

    I personally would have called in sick the next day and partied my ass off. With Osama, I couldn’t really have cared less and changed the channel five seconds after the news interrupted The Simpsons.

  • chubby

     well some people realize science and history and whatnot are dynamic and subject to new studies, information, technology, etc….

  • Voidthought

    He looks like Darth Vader without his mask doesn’t he? 

  • Voidthought

    He looks like Darth Vader without his mask doesn’t he? 

  • Wha_where
  • Wha_where
  • Wha_where
  • http://www.nickmeador.org/ ndmeador

    Both articles are pretty lame, more about media posturing than establishing any “truth” on the matter.

  • http://www.nickmeador.org/ ndmeador

    Both articles are pretty lame, more about media posturing than establishing any “truth” on the matter.

  • Lisa

    @ bookwench: Your point is a fair one in and of itself. The problem people have with Hitchens in this regard is that he is not only lying – he knows he is lying – knows it fine well. He may be an intellectual but he is also a cynic, shopist and a shill

    Hitchens writes disparagingly against what he terms ‘moral equivalence,’ the alternative being the belief that his side of the debate are right by virtue of who they are, rather than what they do. Were that in fact the case, then he would not need to produce such slander. He is effectively saying: We might have killed hundreds of thousands of Arabs since 9/11 – but our motives were good – just ask us and we’ll tell you. If you reject this view of the word then you are guilty of moral equivalence which is the hated notion that we should judge others by the same standards we apply to ourselves. And if you are a prominent enough exponent of this outrageous view then some establishment intellectual will start throwing flak. Let’s look at one at work.
     
    After deliberately misrepresenting the term (moral equivalence) in a shameful act of sophistry, Hitchens notes that it “might be a weak word here” because Chomsky actually argues that Bush’s “crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s.” Hitchens knows full well that this is not what the term moral equivalence refers to. It is not concerned with the end product. It is basically a disparaging term used against people like Chomsky who take the shocking view that we should all be judged by the same standards. When we do this, we find “uncontroversially” that President Bush’s “crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s.” The finding is certainly uncontroversial if we deem the killing of innocent civilians a crime. But what riles Hitchens is that this moral equivalence – or lack of hypocrisy – ignores one crucial fact: We are the goodies.
     
    We could focus on the deceitful question begging and backward reasoning inherent in this position, but such nuances would be lost upon Hitchen’s target audience who view international politics in the same way they view football: Support your team. No matter if your team happens to be full of hatchet men and the opposition side mostly young girls – you just don’t perceive, much less care about, their fouls. If that is the way you want to view the world, that’s up to you – but it’s not scholarship, it is soviet style journalism.
     
    Turning to Michael Moore, and in characteristically disingenuous style, Hitchens appears to argue that a person can be proved guilty without standing trial – a view more in line with bin Laden’s than the US constitution – but he anticipates this and attributes his view to Moore. It’s worth reading that section to see a charlatan at work.
     
    He continues on Chomsky “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.” But Chomsky, who incidentally considers it likely that bin Laden was behind 9/11, simply pointed out that 80 commandos ought to have been able to take an unarmed man alive and that he in fact did not have his day in court which – if captured by goodies –  he should have. Hitchens goes on to label this view a “form of 9/11 denial” (yes – seriously!) before descending into the gutter by inventing Chomsky’s “unstated but self-evident premise, which is that the United States richly deserved the assault on its citizens and its civil society.” If he bothered to digest what Chomsky writes Hitchens would search in vein until his dying days to find any such sentiment – which is a figment of his imagination. Chomsky is on record many times as condemning 9/11 as “an atrocity carried out with wicked and awesome cruelty” which “could never be justified.” Sadly Hitchens now seems to enjoy his sideline of throwing mud for corporate power.

  • emperorreagan

    I wouldn’t deny that Hitchens is, at times, a great writer and can be funny. 

    The problem is that he is, as you point out, a sophist.  That’s why I would never refer to him as an intellectual – I regard an intellectual as someone who typically makes studied, rational arguments.  That’s certainly not true of Hitchens in his foreign policy writing.  

    I haven’t read his writing on religion and atheism, so perhaps he is a less prone to making specious arguments there.  His public statements on that issue and some of the reviews I’ve read don’t really inspire enough confidence for me to consider reading his book, though.  Some of what I’ve heard him say is pretty funny, but I’m also not particularly interested in the anti-theist version of atheism he’s fond of – though at least it is consistent with his neo-conservative approach to foreign policy.

  • Trigger__happy00

    Hitchens said in this article Chomsky is arguing for ‘moral equivancy’. I heard Chosmky say there’s no such thing as it.

    As far as denying Al Quaeda carried out 9/11. Chomsky said that the US government refused to provide Afghanistan government with evidence, because they don’t have any. Therefore among other things the bombing was a war crime.

    This article seems a bit slanderous.

  • Trigger__happy00

    Hitchens said in this article Chomsky is arguing for ‘moral equivancy’. I heard Chosmky say there’s no such thing as it.

    As far as denying Al Quaeda carried out 9/11. Chomsky said that the US government refused to provide Afghanistan government with evidence, because they don’t have any. Therefore among other things the bombing was a war crime.

    This article seems a bit slanderous.

21
More in Christopher Hitchens, Conspiracies, Imperialism, Middle East, Noam Chomsky, Osama Bin Laden, Politics
Is Getting A College Education Just a Big Scam? (Video)

Close