1. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #161056 by ungodlystheist on April 14, 2008 at 5:45 pm

Steve:
Did he? I can't find a reference to this.

We are talking 2003, it was definately reported by the Sunday Telegraph, I think the Sunday Express (But I refuse to touch the Sunday Express - so not so sure about that ine) also carried it. Blair made the ourburst when he was in Glasgow.

If you want a reference, you woud need to look in a local libray and check the archieve, it was in Feb 2003, I think the Sunday after the demonstraion. If I was in the UK, I would look myself, I tend to use libraries alot for such things.

Steve, bet you never had me down as a Telegraph reader? Come on admit it :-)

2. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #161032 by ungodlystheist on April 14, 2008 at 5:16 pm

Comment #161006 by ofir

Sorry, but it is racism.

I support a Palestinian state for palestinians, does that make me racist?

Depends, if you think only Palestinians are the only people who would have the right to apply for citizenship, and live there, then yes.

Now let us look at Israel If you think that people who have lived else where for hundred's. o years, if not well over a thousand years have in some cases, have a right to return, while those who lived there for centuries until just a few decades before do not, then iti s racist.

A famous picture from a demonsration outside the Israeli consulate General's offices in New York , held in the early 80's sums it all up.

It was a picture of an New York Jewish woman holding a poster saying (can't remember the exact words), "I was born in New York, I HAVE THE RIGHT TO RETURN TO ISRAEL!"

Next to her was a Palestinian woman with a poster that said "I was born in Palestine! I DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO RETURN."

So claims of people who have not lived on a land for hundreds, possibly thousands of years,are to be respected above those who lived there until just a few decades ago??

Racist!

3. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #161011 by ungodlystheist on April 14, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Hi al,

"Act your age, rawandi..."

Well I guess that told you!!!

Al, don't you know you should have more respect respect for your elders! Like fuck I say, and I am an elder :-( sob!

Respect is earned, manners is all people can expect until then, and when they abuse that then they should expect scorn!

4. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #161008 by ungodlystheist on April 14, 2008 at 4:52 pm

Palsticity,

On any particular attack where civilians die we can judge which is more likely to lead to fewer deaths.

Is it better to take a decision that leads to less, yes, though in many cases it mught be better not to take any at all (Though, as I said it all depends o the merit of the case).

Tell me when America provided Saddam with chemical weapons, and said nothing when he used it to kill kurds, and went back after this, shook the bastards hand, and agree to sell more.
Do we condemn! Or simply hang Saddam and say "Thats the end of it!" No these bastards should be brought to account.

Now don't come back with, see only America is bad!

I certainly do not share that view. But I do suspect that you think the West is basicaly the good guy, who sometimes gets it wrong, while the Muslims/arabs (the West's present bogey man), are basically the bad guys who somtimes gets it right.

Personally I apply the same standard to all. When a bomb is dropped in a civilian area to kill a militant to innocent deaths are merely called 'collateral damage' it stinks of lies and hypocricy - and should be called such.

We would not accept such an argument if it was made by our enemy, when we are the ones being killed, but we accept it from our side, when it is the other side being killed.

The hypocricy spreads both ways, not just one.

I have a responsibility for what my government does in my name. A responsibulity I do not have for what others may do, not in my name.

When Blair said to the two million demonstators who marched against the war in London "You have blood on your hands!" You have to ask just who is being duplicitous

5. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160996 by ungodlystheist on April 14, 2008 at 4:36 pm

Zionism and racism.

Do call someone a racist for being a zionist is not to say they react like members of the Ku Klux Klan, or that they would BNP in Britain.

They may well be very unaware og race, when, it comes to jufgeing people (Though this is rare amongst zionists who live for the cause -has opposed to xionists who merely support it).

To ant a Jewish state is racist. If the BNOP said they want a white state, but that does not make us racist, we would laugh.

Yet zionists say they support a Jewish state, and expect people to say they are not racist?

Does not wash. To take someone elses land, deny them equality within their state, to make it illegal for an Israeli to campaign against the idea of a "Jewish State" etc., all shouts racism to me.

T

6. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160952 by ungodlystheist on April 14, 2008 at 3:21 pm

ungodly
Your not telling me something I do not know, or that I necessarily care to correct, as I prefer to cover my bases."

Plasticity
You don't care to correct your mistakes because you prefer to "cover my bases." Pardon?

My my, a longest post! Seems wind bagging is not just my fortie ;-) (joke by the way - nothing wrong with a little humour)

This mailing is long I am embarressed to say. I could have broken it into parts, but decide against it. It appears far longer thenit is because of the spacing this board sticks between quotations etc., Take it a quotation block at a time, and you will see it is not so long (Though sill long) :-(

Look I am not infalible, so if you care to show me my mistakes, we can talk, but just claiming I made them will not do!

"Your ignoring the post. It was not done merely to inflict maximum civilian damage. They are better targets if one intends merely ro murder the largest group of people possible, But all I need to say was said in the post you claim to have replied to here."

No, you've ignored my post. Again. The Al Shifa plant bombing took place at night in an effort to avoid unecessary casualties. On 9/11, civilian casualties were considered by the perpetrators to BE A GOOD THING. This is my whole point. You are starting to look very dodgy by failing to acknowledge this. But Chomsky hasn't recognised this, so presumably you can't either.

Your ignoring my post. If it happened to America, you seriously believe America would say "Oh OK then, you had wrong intelligence, but you meant well. Gee, I guess that means we are still friends!" Your not serious are you!

Secondly, you ignore the fact that they where making essential cheap drugs used throughout the region, a fact known before the place was bombed. You ignore that groups like Human Rights Watch have complained about the affects of the bombing on the poor in Sudan.

By the way, you also looked dodgy when you advised that we should ignore intentions and concentrate only on effects when judging the morality of an action.

I said I care little for arguing about moral intentions. In a conflict both sides usually think that they have the morally 'good' intentions, and their enemy has the morally 'bad' intentions. As it not always been so!

Judgeing someone's moral intention is difficult to say the least, and often purely subjective. One can judge the consequences of an action fairly easily, and one can judge the reason the action occured fairly easily, but judgeing the moral 'intention' of the people performing the action, is not always so easy. And moral intention does not clear one of the consequences of one's actions.

ungodly:
"He has not argued that they are more 'morally reprehensible.' Tut tut!!"

plasticity:
He has in so many words, in his book 9/11, where he specifically argues that '...Sudan was the morally worse crime than the world trade centre.'

I hope this direct quote satisfies your craving for the unadulterated, free-flowing pen of Chomsky.

No, since Chomsky does not say that in 9/11. That is not a quote from the book, so I have to ask where did you get it from?

You have either been misled or trying to mislead. Either way the quotations around '...Sudan was the morally worse crime than the world trade centre.' are dishonest. (Not that I am judgeing whether you intend to be dishonest of course - I do not know however that has no bearing on the inaccuracy of your claim.) :-)

For any who might foolishly chose to think you are a reliable source they can check it for themselves.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/4312/Noam-Chomsky-911 Here is an electronic version of 9/11 online, freely available to all (No subscribing to a site etc). You can search the document for the word Sudan. Sudan is used 13 times in 9/11. Your quote, does not appear.

You have to do better then this Plasticity, your plausability has just plummeted in my eyes.

Here is a quote from 9/11

From Chomsky's 9/11:
Though it is merely a footnote, the Sudan case is nonetheless highly instructive. One interesting aspect is the reaction when someone dares to mention it. I have in the past, and did so again in response to queries from journalists shortly after 9-11 atrocities. I mentioned that the toll of the "horrendous crime" of 9-11, committed with "wickedness and awesome cruelty" (quoting Robert Fisk), may be comparable to the consequences of Clinton's bombing of the Al-Shifa plant in August 1998.

Note he talks about "comparable to the consequences". Which is the pont I made about moral intention v consequences.

Here another quote, because I think Chomsky makes a particularly good point here

Or take the destruction of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, one little footnote in the record of state terror, quickly forgotten. What would the reaction have been if the bin Laden network had blown up half the pharmaceutical supplies in the U.S. and the facilities for replenishing them? We can imagine, though the comparison is unfair, the consequences are vastly more severe in Sudan"

There is that nasty word again 'consequences.' Chomsky is talking about the consequences. Consequences that I would say we too easily wash away by talking about our 'good' moral intentions.

ungodly
"Shame on you."

Plasticity
Well, shame on you for shoring up Chomsky with Hitchens, who still supports the war on Iraq. ;O>

This takes the biscuit. I shore up Chomsky with Hitchins. Funny I thought Hitchins was doing that willingly and knowingly, did you read the article written by Hitchins. All the time it was little old me, well I never!


So what if Hitchins supports the war on Iraq. What the hell difference does that make???? Hitchins' article is about the claim that some charge Chomsky of praising the Kymer Rouge etc., Hitchins shows the claims are false.

Let us quote Hitchins again and remember the quote is in reference to the Khmer Rouge claims as anyone can check by going to the article and reading it themselves:

Christopher Hitchins:
As I said, I found all these references with no more effort than it takes to keep up with he weeklies. And I can count William Shawcross and Richard West among my friends, The Spectator and The Times Literary Supplement among my employers, David Horowitz and Fred Barnes among my distant nodding acquaintances. No real "research," in other words. was needed to amass these confident citations. But a little work was required to establish a small fact. Not one of the extracts quoted above, whether you take them "in their context" or out of it, contains any approximation to the truth.
http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/1985----.htm

I do not reject Hitchins out of hand because he supports the war on Iraq. Why should that make him wrong on every issue. It does not. Secondly if one reads the article one will soon see that Hitchins takes these claims and destroys them one by one. He does this by presenting the facts, and not the hearsay, which you seem to rely upon.

How does an article published on www.chomsky.info PROVE that claims about Chomsky and the Khmer Rouge are false?

Read Hitchins article on www.chomsky.com and decide for yourself. Saying it is on www.chomsky.com and therefore cannot disprove anything is not a valid argument - surely you can see that! I am happy for people to read it and draw their own conclusions.

Francis Wheen and Hitchens are close friends. Wheen was not mentioned in the article you linked. Can you find an article by Hitchens that 'disproves' the following? :


"During the late 1970s Chomsky consistently ridiculed the idea that Pol Pot might be a mass murderer, despite the testimony of many Cambodians who had fled accross the border. 'Refugees are frightened and defenceless, at the mercy of the alien forces,' he told readers of the Nation in June 1977. 'They naturally tend to report what they believe their interlocutors wish to hear... Specifically, refugees questioned by Westerners or Thais have a vested interest in reporting atrocities on the part of the Cambodian revolutionaries, an obvious fact that no serious reporter will fail to take into account.' Two years later, after the overthrow of Pol Pot, the huge piles of skulls in his death camps confirmed that it wasn't the refugees who had deluded themselves. The most authoritative estimate is that between April 1975 and January 1979 the Khmer Rouge killed 1.67 million Cambodians, or 20 per cent of the population - proportionally the greatest carnage ever inflicted by a government on its subjects. Yet even in 1980, when he published 'After the Cataclysm: Postwar Indochina and the Reconstruction of Imperial Ideology', Chomsky reproached those who applied the word 'genocide' to this Holocaust. [Chomsky said] 'The deaths in Cambodia were not the result of a systematic slaughter and starvation organised by the state but rather attributable in large measure to peasant revenge, undisciplined military units out of government control, starvation and desease that are a consequence of the US war, or other such factors."
Wheen

They are friends, therefore the claim is true????

Yes, read what Hitchins says about these charges in the article I link too. In the quote I give from the article above, Hitchens' is addressing these very points.

Read the article and you can save yourself further embarressment!

You quote Wheen's "How Mumbo-jumbo Conquered the World." as if Wheen was the first to make these claims. They are old claims that go back to the late 60's early seventies. The fact that Wheen aooears to be passing them off has apparently his own, years later does not surprise me at all. That is Wheen for you!

But because they are old arguments, they have been answered long before Wheen even thought of writing "Mumbo jumbo" a book in which he apparently engages in his own blend of mumbo jumbo ie, "Dress up old arguments, present then has new, and watch people fall for it!"

Tell me does Wheen present any foototes sighting his sources? if so I would love to know what they are. If I was not travelling I could look it up in my own copy, but will not have the opportuinity to do that until May. If someone reading this has a copy look it up, and see what sources, if any, Wheen provides! From what I remember from reading the book four years ago I suspect there will be none! (He asks us just to take his word)

I could cite the following open letter, by David Aaronovitch,Oliver Kamm and Francis Wheen as 'proof' that the Guardian apology was unjustified. This isn't from www.chomsky.info either, by the way:


"Another newspaper that carried the interview, the South African Mail & Guardian, concluded after a similar lobbying effort by Chomsky's supporters, "Chomsky does try to minimise the Srebrenica atrocity… Brockes cannot be accused of misrepresenting his essential position." That issue remains unconsidered by The Guardian, as does the oddity that in his judgements the readers' editor appears to be accountable to no one."

This is a more recent claim (though not current).

Brockes was completely discredited. The ombudsman ruled against the Guardian. So her supporters disagree, did you think they wound not! (Don't tell me you think the ombudsman was bias).

It was Aronvitch and Wheen who tried to defend Brockes (I think the third person was that ever so not delightful Oliver Kamm.) Ombudsman John Willis concluded that the complaint from these three indiviudals could provide no quote to support their allegation that Brockes made in her article. Though that did not stop then from trying. Wheen is still trying, but still unsuccesful.

What did Brockes do, well one of her tricks was to use quotation marks to emphasise points. But this was a telephone interview with Chomsky, did the quotations marks travel down the telephone line. Chomsly is in print all over the place on this issue, ans despite the terrible trio's attempt (Aronovitch, Wheen and I think Kamm) they could not find anything to back up their claim. That speaks volumes about their trustworhiness on this issue.

ungodly:
Ah name calling in place of argument.

Plasticity:
No, didn't call you a name at any point. I merely made tongue-in-cheek observations based on your previous posts (your inability to take things on board if Chomsky doesn't agree with them, or if they are critical of Chomsky.) I made these suggestions when you hypocritically suggested that I can't think for myself.

Damn I have to concede that point, You did not call me names. Granted techniclly not name calling, but certainly not an argument! And it was most definately a string of ad-hominems!

This is what you wrote.

Plasticity
If you'll pardon the expression, POT...KETTLE...BLACK. If I was feeling uncharitable, I would say that you hero-worship Chomsky. This is why you have spent so long quoting him or selectively quoting anybody that supports him on this forum. But hey, you made the first ad-hominem, so I'll respond in kind.

Your inability to form your own opinions outside of Chomsky's analysis has led to your circular reasoning, and your long-winded monologues/tirades against anyone who dares speak against the gospel of Chomsky. Is this a bit over the top? Maybe, but some of us REALLY don't have the time.

The valid argument just flows from those paragraphs! lol

Plasticity
No, didn't call you a name at any point. I merely made tongue-in-cheek observations based on your previous posts (your inability to take things on board if Chomsky doesn't agree with them, or if they are critical of Chomsky.) I made these suggestions when you hypocritically suggested that I can't think for myself.

My inability to take things on Board if Chomsky does not agree with them! Are you serious, you know little of my views apart from those discussed here. Are you telepathic, are you able to read my mind and know my political opinions on things I have not discussed?!?!?

You accuse Chomsky of falsehoods, misquote him, cannot back up with references the claims you make, and do not even read what Hitchins has wrote about these claims, and you say "I cannot take things on board" Now what pot is wrongly calling the kettle black, certainly not me.

Your funny!!

BTW if you can think for yourself as you claim, by all means do so, don't let me stop you!

7. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160846 by ungodlystheist on April 14, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Hi Steve,

We usually disagree in our clashes in this forum, but your such a gentleman it is impossible not to remain on good terms with you.

Not that I thnk political disagreements are usually a good enough reason not to be on good terms, or even good friends, with people.

Though on some issues I do make that decision, I bet you can even guess what one of those issues might be, or if not you I am sure ofir could.

I digress, yet again.

Steve:
I was illustrating that quantity of "footnotes" alone does not assist with an argument.

Hmm, well if you say that is all you were doing I guess I have to accept.

ungodly: What do you do now Steve, two peer groups, often opposing each other

I don't have a clue, to be honest. Give up and admit I don't know enough to come to a conclusion, perhaps.?

Well I don't think you have to give up. Take the occupation of Iraq for example, I think it is fairly easy to come to a conclusion on that.

Even Peter Hitchins is able to do that, which is further proof, if more was needed, just how weak 'defence' of the war and occupation of Iraq actually is.

Some things may take more effort. To my mind it is not so much if someone disagrees with me (takig myself as a example of some one with strong political views), it is their basis for disagreeing that matters.

Sometimes, issues are complex, and people do draw different views in good faith. But when someone merely accepts the status quo, merely because it is the status quo, and not because they have tried to inform themselves on the subject, I must admit I can become rather testy."

I don't accept that any single author should be taken as providing all the information to come to a conclusion.

To go over this again. Any given author may point you at those who disagree with them. That is a good sign, but it still isn't enough. If someone has a point of view, they are going to write to support that point of view! Taking a single source, even if it is well-researched, is a bad idea.

And I have said I agree with you. Most of what you say here is an obvious truism, and applies to all.

Chomsky, Pilger, Zinn, Roy share a common outlook on the world, and of course they are going to write to support that point of view. Why you think that might be wrong I fail to understand.

Similarly Wheen, Aronovitch etc write to support their outlook on the world.

I do have one caveat. A source that is 'well reserched' is not a single source by definition of being 'well-researched.'

Are you going to answer the point about you claiming "peer review" of Chomsky's work, or is that not worth persuing? I don't mind forgetting about it.

I thought I had

Let's try again.

The standard of 'peer review' you ask for does not apply to 'political journalism' for want of a better term. Therefore to expect Chomsky to come up to this measure, that no political journalist can come up to, is fallicious.

Any political journalist who goes into print is automatically peer reviewed, when ever their book is reviewed, praised, critiqued etc by other 'political commentators'.

I am not aware of any other standard of 'peer review' for political commentators.

You point about Chomsky being on the edge, all depends on who you accept as being at the center. As I said Pilger, Zinn, Fisk, Roy, Ali etc, (Don't assume because I quote them I agree with every point of view they express) do not share your suspicion of Chomsky.

So if by peer review, you mean other political commentators, well amongst the group I named many basically share Chimsky's view. And I could add many more names to that list.

8. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160830 by ungodlystheist on April 14, 2008 at 12:53 pm

al

I am absolutely dying... dying... to hear plasticity's explanation of al-Qaeda's motives. So excited.

Like you I wait in eager anticipation, but so far no response? But I suspect neither of us are surprised by that.

Simple people like simple answers. That explains why the political right in this country has been characterized by so much sloganeering.

From my visits to your side of the pond I would have to agree. We do a little better on this side, but usually not much better!

Your analysis of the al-Shifa' bombing is very good. Politics is about looking like you are doing something. Hence Clinton lobbing the occassionaly cruise missile into Afghanistan in the 1990's.

Thanks!

Political expediency often explains more about politics then almost anything else, imo.

9. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160812 by ungodlystheist on April 14, 2008 at 12:23 pm

Steve:
I wasn't being slippery. You were the one who suggested that by reading Chomsky's article, following his citations, and nothing else, I should be convinced.

I do not think your intend slipperyness, but slippery you are imho.

ungodly
do not even know what you mean here Steve.

Chomsky does not reference himself, as you implied in an earlier post. That is simply dishonest, and an accusation anyone who has read Chomsky can easily verify for themselves.

Steve
I never said this. The one referencing Chomsky to support Chomsky is (in my opinion) you.

Really, so you did not write

I can do that too:

An opinion by Steve.

Here is my opinion(1), which I think is right(2), based on my interpretation(3).

(1) A footnote by me, explaining why I am right.
(2) A footnote containing a reference to someone who agrees with me.
(3) A footnote containing a reference to a previous book of mine in which I showed how everyone else was wrong.

See how the number of footnotes does not, of itself, mean anything?

Incidentally, one of the most infamous footnoters is Terry Pratchett. But that does not mean that the Discworld books are true.

So what did you mean when you wrote the above?????


By the way, where have I said tht reading Chomsky should be enough to convince you? or that following his footnotes, will do it?

I have pointed out his quotes are often from people who disagree with him, (as well as froom scholarly, historical, original sources, etc.,) so one can easily read what people who disagree with a particular argument think. And draw ones own conclusions.

I have never said you should be convinced. I have said your claim would obviously be proved wrong, when you suggested he merely footnotes/citations with facts that agree with him, and authors that agree with him. A claim easly proved wrong just by picking up and reading a book by Chomsky

I said nothing about you being convinced by the overwhelming logoc of his argument!!!!

steve:
Chomsky provides citations. However, it is difficult without considerable research to know if these citations are the full story. I don't know about you, but I don't have the time to become an experienced political commentator and historian. So, all I can do is sample the views of a range of commentators and historians. I don't hero worship anyone, or assume that any particular commentator has anything like a monopoly on correctness. I would never suggest that reading one commentators work (even with following up the "footnotes") is any way to find out the truth.

Steve your argueing with yourself, I have never claimed that a particular commentator has a monopoly on truth. It is you claiming that is what people who read Chomsky do??

That is a creation of your fevered imagination.

I read from many sources, but when you talk about peer critque (I hear peer conformity) Let me see, Pilger, Fisk, Zinn, Arundhati Roy etc would support many of Chomsky's claims. So it seems it depends on the peer group.

What do you now Steve, two peer groups, often opposing each other?

Sorry but saying I go with what the media prints is not good enough in my view. Some of Chomsky's best work is his critique of the media, remember he is a professor of linguistics, that skill comes in handy when anylising the news media itself.

You may find Chomsky's 'Media Control' book interesting. (Note I said interesting - not that you will be overwhelmingly convinced by what he says)

I forget you do not read Chomsky, because you like to read from a wide source. The logic in that argument still escapes me.

10. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160762 by ungodlystheist on April 14, 2008 at 11:24 am

Plasticity
No, you should assume I appreciate concise posts. As opposed to yours, which are unnecessarily long and convoluted.

I willingly acknowledge I am a wind bag. Convoluted is a charge I am less willing to accept.

Plasticity
Your last one was even longer, yet you didn't have an answer for the fact you falsely accused Wheen et al of jumping on a bandwagon in the wake of the Guardian article. I think it is symptomatic of your desire to attack anything remotely anti-Chomsky that this confabulation has occurred.

I said I am a windbag! Your not telling me something I do not know, or that I necessarily care to correct, as I prefer to cover my bases.

ungodly
"It cannot be said that the intention was to inflict maximum civilian casualties, and none other."

Plasticity
Well done for pointing out the obvious. They were looking to create maximum civillian damage, unlike the bombing on Al-Shifa which was carried out during the middle of the night. That's the point.

Your ignoring the post. It was not done merely to inflict maximum civilian damage. They are better targets if one intends merely ro murder the largest group of people possible, But all I need to say was said in the post you claim to have replied to here.

ungodly
"I do not care for your moral universe, that says our murder is good, their murder is bad."

Plasticity
What planet are you on? I think this is very worrying. At no point have I made any apologist arguments on behalf of anybody's murderous actions. The point is that Chomsky has wrongly argued that the Al-Shifa bombings were more morally reprehensible than 9/11, for reasons I won't repeat yet again.

He has not argued that they are more 'morally reprehensible.' Tut tut!! Care to provide proof, your s'ummarisation' will not do. Morally repreehensible is hardly a term that is likely to flow from Chomsky's pen. But I am happy for my post to stand.

ungodly
"One that even has Hitchins as a peer review. And guess what, when it comes to the Chomsky charges you suck...
Your merely repeating others, without knowing the sources or the truthfulness of the acusations being made."

Plasticity
If you'll pardon the expression, POT...KETTLE...BLACK. If I was feeling uncharitable, I would say that you hero-worship Chomsky. This is why you have spent so long quoting him or selectively quoting anybody that supports him on this forum. But hey, you made the first ad-hominem, so I'll respond in kind.

Please, let me see, you accuse Chomsky of

Plasticity : I would be cautious when I engage in the wholesale defense of a man who complained that "the positive side of the [Khymer Rouge] picture has been virtually edited out", and who disbelieves reports of Cambodian genocide because it does not fit in with his world view.

I wonder if you could provide a source from Chomsky for that 'claim' or whether you are merely quoting what soneone else says Chomsky has said - I am confident it is the later.


I quote Christopher Hitchins, and post a link to an article by him saying that these charges against Chiomsky are false, and Hitchins gives very rebust replies to such false claims - as one would expect from Htchins - and you come back with this childish piece of name calling. Shame on you

So for those who miss it, here is the link to Christipher Hitchins demonsrating that your slander of Chomsky about Kymer Rouge, and similar chrges that some 'honest journalists have made, is clearly false

http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/1985----.htm

For those who missed the quotes from Hitchins, they are worth repeating here

The Spectator and The Times Literary Supplement among my employers, David Horowitz and Fred Barnes among my distant nodding acquaintances. No real "research," in other words. was needed to amass these confident citations. But a little work was required to establish a small fact. Not one of the extracts quoted above, whether you take them "in their context" or out of it, contains any approximation to the truth.

and again from Hitchins' same article.
David Horowitz and Peter Collier were wrong, in the syndicated article announcing their joint conversion to neoconservatism, to say that Chomsky hailed the advent of the Khmer Rouge as "a new era of economic development and social justice."

Your inability to form your own opinions outside of Chomsky's analysis has led to your circular reasoning, and your long-winded monologues/tirades against anyone who dares speak against the gospel of Chomsky. Is this a bit over the top? Maybe, but some of us REALLY don't have the time.

Did you even read Hitchin's article which proves your 'claims' about CHomsky and the Khmer Rouge are false.

Ah name calling in place of argument. Can't say I am surprised, though possibly disappointed.

You know little about me, and yet you know all this!! Wow, thats truly amazing! rofl.

I would hate to be as fairminded as you, people might think I am a ... Nor I won't go there.

11. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160744 by ungodlystheist on April 14, 2008 at 10:49 am

Steve:
I said I had trouble accepting what Chomsky writes (in fact, accepting what any individual writes) in isolation, because an individual will provide what you call "footnotes", and I would call citations, to back up their case, and may, deliberately or otherwise, exclude others (they may have a good reason to exclude some, but how do we know?).

This is where I find you slippery Steve. Here you add a new element to the pot "in isolation." Well guess what who can disagree with that.

If someone accepted what a political commentator sad in isolation, I would be worried about their ability to critique, a point I think you most probably would agree upon.

Your picture of someone tucked up in bed with Chomsky at night, reading the Chonsky Telegraph in the morning, and listening to Chomsky ipods throughout the day, is cute, but far from real. The only person I agree with 100% is my self, and my views are always open to revision.

Tell me do you always agree with David Aronovitch, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, Simon Jenkins - of course not, on many occasions they do not even bloody well agree with each other.

Now tell me when you read Aronovitch, how do you know if he is not committing 'sins of ommision?' You don't. You have to read from many sources 9a point we agree on), check out any summarisations of other peoples arguments he may make - after all he may be ommitting something important.

Your standard applies to all Steve, not just Chomsky. Now you specifically accuse Chomsky of 'sins of ommission' a journalistic crime he apparently does regurlarly, according to you.

Chomsky is one of the most published political pundits in print, provide the evidence, spill the beans, but your money where your mouth is.

This particular emperor has no clothes Steve, which explains your lack of evidence.

I pointed out that for scientific publications, there is not the same degree of problem. The reason is that (to generalise) before publication, stuff gets peer reviewed. If the citations had not helped make the case, the publication would be rejected. So, when published, you can have reasonable confidence that a case has been made.

True, but a number of people have already pointed out that such a standard cannot be applied to journalism. There is no peer review of that kind possible within journalism.

Now, you attempted to justify acceptance of Chomsky's writings and his use of citations by claiming that his work was effectively "peer reviewed" on publication, not before.

I am asking you to back this claim. Who are the peers who review him? How do they review him?

Tell me Francis Wheen is peer reviewed before he goes to print? I think not. How would one even conduct such a peer review. Your asking for a 'standard' that does not exist.


I said Chomsky like any other political commentator is reviewed when in print. You even claim to know some critics that accuse him of sins of ommission, but you comtinuously omit to provide evidence of the alleged offence.

This particular point has nothing to do with whether or not Chomsky is right. It is to do with your claim that one can get to some kind of truth by reading his writings along with his citations. It is about how his writings and his use of citations are quality-checked (actually, this applies to just about every other "intellectual" who writes such public articles as well).

What are you saying, that Chomsky sits in his study at MIT and fabricates the? Or that he just sticks anything down, and hopes it is correct? Even those who disagree with CHomsky woud not accuse him of that, and many recognise his contributions to journalism, etc, even when they strongly disagree with him. He is a highly regarded intellectual for a reason. Steve it feels to me as if your just making blind inuendos here, hoping that if enough mud is flung, some will stick in people's minds.

You still provide no proof of your false accusation about Chomsky's sins of ommission.

When you read Aronovitch, are you telling me you read him with a blank mind, accepting everything he says because he says it? Of course, not! You compare his arguments with those facts you are already aware of, important points he makes on issues you care about, you seek further clarification on from other sources, check footnotes if they are provided.

What you should not so is see if his peers, ie those who share similar political views to him agree with him. as if their approval makes the argument correct. That is to argue from authority!

Unless you can back this up, it gives the impression that you are using Chomsky's writings to back Chomsky's writings, which is not a reliable way to go with any source.

I do not even know what ou mean here Steve.

Chomsky does not reference himself, as you implied in an earlier post. That is simply dishonest, and an accusation anyone who has read Chomsky can easily verify for themselves.

You speak as if only Chmsky agrees with Chomsky. What about people like Pilger, Fisk, Zinn etc. Agreed no one person agrees with Chomsky 100% but did you expect to find such a person. And can you name soneone you agree with 100%??

12. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160529 by ungodlystheist on April 14, 2008 at 7:24 am

Steve Zara

I am afraid that is what I feel about what you are writing. You declare that "peer review" has happened, but seem unwilling to accept the consequences of this.

If you insist that Chomsky's writing in this area have been "peer reviewed", then perhaps you could suggest who these peers are.

I thought we had agreed that journalism, is not peer reviewed etc, Who would peer review in the USSR for example.

One cannot subject journalism to peer review the way one can a political paper. It simply does not happen

So your asking for the impossible.

Now who peer reviews Chomsky, well you seem to know journalists/commentators who disagree with him.

Are you saying they have not read him, they
do not review hs work. Of course all critiques good and bad are 'reviews' because in the world of journalism and commentators that really is all there is.

Commentators do not even practive political science, which is a sifferent academic subject all together. So really fail to see where your going.

Steve it is simple, provide the proof. Lay it on the table. What sins of ommission do you accuse Chomsky of? There are bound to be some, anyone in print as much as Chomsky is bound to have some.

But what we are looking for is a sunstantial sin of ommission that shows his conclusins are wrong.

Rather then go round in circles simply provide the proof Steve. Your the one making the claim.

Does the emperor have no clothes I wonder? Are you naked as you type Steve. I promise not to peek :-)

13. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160511 by ungodlystheist on April 14, 2008 at 7:06 am

ofir :And by the way you are not polite at all. You just pretend to be.

And to think I told you how to make those nice blockquotes.

I do not claim to be polite, especially to people who I suspect of being sympathetic towards zionism. That is the way I am, I make no apologies. But I never attack out right, I am a passive agressor ;-) So no danger of being bitten by this mad English dog, but your sensitive toes may get bruised.

Your still talking about 'them', as if 'them' is representative of all Arabs and Muslims. Did not know the whole of the Arab world is responsible for the copy, or statements broadcast by the website you post.

They must have a bloody big studio? How do all these Arabs and Muslim's fit round the microphone?


Now is Israel a racist state. Well Israel prides itself on being a "Jewish state."

As for getting into a debate with you, I like you have a life, and debating every issue that comes up in a thread would mean I would sit in front of my laptop all day long, sadly I have a business to run, so time does not allow that.

Lots has been said about Israel on this forum. If you want to know why I, and people like al-rawandi - a more regular and lucent poster than me, strongly disagree with your 'charming' picture of Isael as the supreme victim battleing the odds against the hoarde of filthy Arabs, you will find lots.

Just click on 'other comments' by me, or al-rawandi, you will find it in the bottom left of all posts - that will tell you why we think the way we do about Israel,

Now you can disagree fine, but if your going to do so, don't assume your all knowing and we are all ignorant on the subject of Israel and Palestine.

14. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160484 by ungodlystheist on April 14, 2008 at 6:41 am

Plasticity
Thanks for the filibuster.

My pleasure, should I assume you support the Rebublicans who wish to get rid of filibustian??? ;-)

Plasticity
You wrote : "Just think if the attack had been against America, would america see faulty intelligence as a sign of good 'moral intention.' To ask the question, is to answer it in my view."

That doesn't come remotely close to answering the question. Let's reverse the scenario properly:

The Sudanese bomb an American pharmaceutical plant, killing one security guard. The Sudanese government think they are destroying a terrorist chemical weapons site. They do not try to inflict maximum civilian casualties. In fact, they attack in the middle of the night, when no civilian workers would be there. Their goal is to destroy a structure.

Lets compare like with like. For a fair analogy, imagine that the USA is a third world country, that cheap drugs are essential to its people, and that the pharmaceutical plant destroyed was the only major source of such drugs in the country and wider region. That is a truer picture.

As to the destruction of the plant, which was known to be a pharmaceutical plant and the only cheap source of essential medicines in the region before the attack, it did have negative inpact upon Sudan and the region. Even the Human Rights Watch has complained about the negative consequences of the attack on the poor of Sudan.

Now let us look at the 'intelligence'.

But one point first, I am surprised when people act as if the 'bad' intelligence used to justify the Iraq invasion and on going occupation is something new. It is not, and the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory is a case in point.

Bush had to be seen to act after 9/11. He had to show America that he was able to respond and attack America's enemies. To do that he had to try and connect Saddam with Al-Quida and make the WMD claims look like a real, serious and imminent threat that cannot be ignored.

Clinton had to do the same after the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya. The factory was said to be connectd with Al-quida, had contracts with weapions experts in Iraq? yet these claims are now known to be as false as the ones made about Iraq.

Let us look at this 'bad' intelligence. It was a genuine mistake you say? I think not.

The case begins with the fact that CIA agents found EMPTA in a soil sample taken one mile away from the site. Clinton's administration claimed that it was a banned substance by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) - only to withdraw the caim within days when it was pointed out that the CWC does not ban EMPTA. Wow, some great intelligence!

Then we learn that the nature of the plant's construction meant that the plant emitted no effluent discharge, so how it could have been the source of the EMPTA is a further mystery.

Within days of the attack Sudan invited the UN to send a commission to check if weapons where being used at the plant. It never went ahead, and one of the main reasons was American opposition. Since then the Sudanese government has repeatedly invited the USA to do their own investigation for evidence of nerve gas manufacturing at the plant, America refuses.

Not only that, but the Clinton and the present administration, refuse any independent laboratory from verifying the presence of EMPTA in the soil sample the CIA agents claimed to have recovered.

But even if the plant was the source of the EMPTA (A mater now many experts, even within the State department, now call into qustion) it would hardly be surprising since EMPTA is used in the making of, guess what, pharmaceuticals!

The claims that it was connected wth Iraq's WMD programme, or with A-Quida is denied by none other that that Chomskian organisation the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research, and this as early as 1999.

The evidence of bad faith is still coming forward in 2006. We now know that Mary McCarthy has broken ranks, and as reveled that she wrote a formal letter of protest to Clinton saying the evidence was unreliable.

Is it any wonder that I and others draw the conclusion that the evidence is flimsy, even whimsical.

Plasticity:
A number of American religious fanatics hijack some planes in a suicide attack, killing thousands of Sudanese. The express intent is to inflict maximum civilian casualties.

To seek to undertstand ones enemy is not to agree with them, so I hope you will not go down the bad faith route of calling people apologists.

Whatever one thinks of the reasons for the attack, it cannot be said that the intention was to inflict maximum civilian casualties, and none other. In which case why was the Whitehouse targeted? why the Pentagon? And who would seriously deny that the World Trade Towers was an attack upon America's economic power?

If it was merely to kill, why not fly the plane into the Yankee stadium when the Yankee's are playing the Red sox's, that would have killed far more.

Of course they were not bothered about inflicting civilian casualitues, no one I think could suggest otherwise, or at least not do so and be taking seriously. But to say the targets were chosen for civilian damage and not to attack the economic, military and government centre's of power would also be untrue.

These two scenarios are in completely different moral universes.

I do not care for your moral universe, that says our murder is good, their murder is bad. The killing of innocent life is just that, the killing of innocent life.

For example: To cut off the power supply to a hospital as an act of aggression, and then to say we have no responsibility for those patients who died as a result is an exercise in sophistry. Equally to destroy the main pharmaceutical plant in a third world country that one knows is creating maleria and other essential medicines, based on flimsy 'intelligence' and say we are not responsible for the consequences is equally an exercise in sophistry

nogodly
"I am sure Islamists could argue that they intended to attack the commerce, military, and government HQ of America, the fact that people had to die for that to happen is unfortunate, but necessary."

Plasticity
To be frank, this is ignorant. Islamists manifestly do not care about civilian casualties. If you believe they do, you do not understand the mindset of Islamism or religious fanatacism.

I never said they do. I was being sarcastic, that our civilian deaths are always colateral damage, where as the civilian deaths of our enemies are always cold blooded murder.

So tell me. the Al Quida attack on Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania took place because this was the only place that civilians could be found???


I do not think they do care for civilian casualties, or at least they do not many appear to in the vast majority of cases, but to say they target civilians for the sake of targeting civilians is also not true.

When it comes to suicide bombings etc, I woud recommend Robert Pape's book Dying to Win. All terrorist groups have secular political goals no matter how religious they may be. Hamas wants Israel out of Palestine, Al Quida wants a number of things, one of them being the removal of American forces from the Middle East. They specifically wanted them removed from Saudi Arabia, and AMerica has quietly obliged on that one.

But that debate takes us far away from the present discussion, and I have not the time or energy to get into it here.

Plasticity
Is America guilty of imperialist crimes? Absolutely. The problem with Chomsky, and his acolytes who defend every word of his writing, is the underlying assertion that the only source of evil in the world is America, and they had it coming on 9/11.

Defend everyword of his writings!! This is pure rhectoric. I bet you even Chomsky does not do that.

Sorry but this is balderdhash, and to use a phrase my mother was found of "Triple Tripe." The idea that Chomsky thinks America is the only source of evil is pathetic. To say that one has to look at events from a cause and effect point of view, and not magically start history at a date that conveniently suits one's view point of view is not to say America had it coming. It is being realistic. Like it or not, the history of American involvement in the Middle Eastd did not begin with 9/11.

And the phrase "To have it coming" is objectionable. Let us leave that to idiots like George Bush who said "Bring it on!"

Plasticity
I would be cautious when I engage in the wholesale defense of a man who complained that "the positive side of the [Khymer Rouge] picture has been virtually edited out", and who disbelieves reports of Cambodian genocide because it does not fit in with his world view.

Not these old chestnuts. Lets us see as someone defended Chomsky over these claims and writting attacking the claims as balderdash.

Hm, I wonder who that could be??!??

Well, good old Christipher Hitchins would disagree with you. In relaition to the Kymer Rouge/Cambodia charge, read the following and weep. Hitchin's is addressing the very charge about Kymer Rouge in the quote below.

Christopher Hitchins:
As I said, I found all these references with no more effort than it takes to keep up with he weeklies. And I can count William Shawcross and Richard West among my friends, The Spectator and The Times Literary Supplement among my employers, David Horowitz and Fred Barnes among my distant nodding acquaintances. No real "research," in other words. was needed to amass these confident citations. But a little work was required to establish a small fact. Not one of the extracts quoted above, whether you take them "in their context" or out of it, contains any approximation to the truth.

http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/1985----.htm

Ah we all know that Christipher is, or was, an acolade of Chmomsky!

Christoher goes on in the article

still maintain that we are in the territory so deftly mapped by Dr. Arbuthnot -- and by Ryszard Kapuscinski in Shah of Shahs;

What should one write to ruin an adversary? The best thing is to prove that he is not one of us -- the stranger, alien, foreigner. To this end we create the category of the true family. We here, you and I, the authorities, are a true family. We live in unity, among our own kind. We have the same roof over our heads, we sit at the same table, we know how to get along with each other, how to help each other out. Unfortunately, we are not alone.

In relation specifically to the Kymer Rouge charge:

David Horowitz and Peter Collier were wrong, in the syndicated article announcing their joint conversion to neoconservatism, to say that Chomsky hailed the advent of the Khmer Rouge as "a new era of economic development and social justice."

The whole article is about why they, and others who misapply Chomsky, and should know better, are the ones who are dishonest, disengeneous and cavalier with the facts.


Please stop rosting these old chestnuts! The smoke from the fire blinds your eyes and soils your features, not Chomsky's.

BTW Plasticity, you may consider this a peer review of your posting.

One that even has Hitchins as a peer review. And guess what, when it comes to the Chomsky charges you suck.

Your merely repeating others, without knowing the sources or the truthfulness of the acusations being made.

15. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160400 by ungodlystheist on April 14, 2008 at 3:20 am

ungodly: Of course you should wonder about them. But that does not in itself make them false, Chomsky provides the information you need to come to your own conclusion.

Steve:That is just an opinion, and is not justifed as part of the criticism of Chomsky is that he sins by ommission.

.

Thre you are making the accusation again, but where it the proof, what are these omissions?

You seem to be very much aware of them, so point out a few.

And anyway, just follow through on the main footnots, with the internet and google it is even easier to do so.

Chomsky's very style of writing, assumes that the people reading him are likely to be avid media vultures, who enjoy nothing more then reading articles, watching news, and challenging and having their ideas challenge.

Again your view of Chomsky simply does not fit.
Take the 'conentration camp' in former Yugoslavia, which you raise.

It is all coming to light now, for me. As a guardian reader you think anything it publishes must be true, or at least, close to it.

To which I would say why not apply criticism to what you read there also. The Guardian did a 'terrible' hatchet job on Chomsly on this issue, one that was easily shown to be so.

What you then find is people who have done little, to no research, repeat the allegations that Emma Brockes made, and The Guardian Editorial added too, as if it is fact.

What few know is that the Guardian had to print both a retraction and an apology for that scurrilous piece of journalism

But this has not stoped it from entering into the 'urban myths' category amongst people who have not read Chomsky on the issue.

And since some here moon over David Aaronovitch, and Francis Wheen, you should know that they initially added their voices to trying to defend that piece of 'journalism.'

Peer review happens, I do not understand what your statement means. I said CHomsky is peer reviewed the moment he goes into print, just like any other political commentator.

Peer review does not mean "many other people like what I have to say". It implies that the consensus of supposed experts in an area agree that you have made your case. That has not happened with Chomsky.

You seem to want to have things both ways. You claim that Chomsky is outside the mainstraim, and that this is good, but then you claim his views have been validated by the mainstream (i.e. peer review). Peer review is not just "my friends like what I wrote".

Who said it was just a case of 'friends liking what they wrote.' This seems a rather flippent comment.

Once again I find you hard to discuss with Steve, this has happened a few times now, like a slippery eel, it is impossinle to get an angle on what you mean, because you seem to amend it wth each post. Such as bringing in the idea of 'scientific peer' review. But alas, to your point.

You denied his work is peer reviewed, I said any journalist political commentator who goes into print is autmatically reviewed by his peers in the media. (favourably or not) Peer review is not like scietific peer review.

Hitchins is peer reviewed, unfavourably by his peers, on the issue of the Iraq occupation. That in itself does not make Hitchins wrong, that fact on its own says little of anything about the issue.

I have not claimed Chomsky's views have been validated by the main stream, I care little for the 'mainstream', if you use that phase to mean this is how one can know if a point is valid or not.

Being validated by the main stream tells you nothing about how correct or incorrect a commentator is. Being ignored or criticised by the main stream does not do that either.

Steve you are the one who seems to be arguing that it is the mainstream that is the measuring rod for reliability, and going even further, by saying those who tend to agree with Chomsky, think it is because his writings are 'outside' the main stream is why they consider his opinions to be often valid. A vacuous agument in my opinion.

It is facts and valid arguement, that makes a political opinion valid or not. Whether those facts and arguments are accepted or rejected by the main stream makes no difference.

This seems so obviously true about political analysis etc, that I do not understand why you make the point.

What would the main stream have been in the USSR? What is the main stream in Israel about the occupied terrortories (I am talking about media main stream - they are many Israeli's who oppose the occupation)

Look in America with all the fuss about McCain being called a warmonger, or Obama's comments about "Bitter blue collar workers." He stepped outside the mainstream - and he pays the price.


Mainstream does not mean anything. For example, was the bombing of Dresden and other German cities a war crime, yes it was. Does the mainstream media agree at the time, or even now? No! But so what.

It is the facts and valid arguments that count, not who agrees or disagrees. It is the reasons why people agree or disagree that matters

I think A C Greyling "Among the Dead Cities" clearly demonstrates that the carpet bombing of Germany towards the closing days of WWII was a war crime.

In his debate with Hitchins, Grayling clearly trouched Hitchins on this issue, imo.

16. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160167 by ungodlystheist on April 13, 2008 at 6:53 pm

177. Comment #160162 by ofir

You post

I have tried to debate Arabs and muslims, but their world is controlled by state media full of Nazi inspired propaganda.

And follow it up with

By the way - I used to play in an all Arabic band.

Now you make a generalisation, and then say you have/had friends who that generalisation does not apply to.

You say that shows it means you have experienced their culture? Which, your friends, or those nazi like Arabs?

Since we were talking about Palestine and Israel initially, I suggest you live under Israeli occupation for 40 years, and then you can talk about understanding their culture.

You haven't addressed any of my points - check memritv.org for a start. It's good to know how they think about us. No?

Well at least we know what you think about 'Them'. And please refain form including me in your "us."

You do not like my style of debate! I could say what I do not like about yours, but am to polite to spell it out.

As Hitchins would say, "Why hit below the belt?"

17. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160158 by ungodlystheist on April 13, 2008 at 6:37 pm

Comment #160142 Ofir

"By the way - I used to play in an all Arabic band."

I also have black friends! Hmmm, Well, little more to say.

18. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160156 by ungodlystheist on April 13, 2008 at 6:35 pm

Steve:

We need to slow down abit here. So along post, I am a wordy chatter box.

ungodly
Secondly: what journalism is subject to the kind of peer review that scientific papers are subject too?

Precisely, which is why we have to use such caution in assuming that our favourite commentator on political and historical matters are correct.

Well of course we do. Did anyone say we do not?
You seem to be implying that anyone who reads Chomsky, does not use caution - is this why you refuse to even listen to a short interview by Chomsky, on the issue you accuse him of being dishonest/bias?

We seem to agree that wanting scentific peer type reviews of political commentry etc is never going to work. So why raise it in relation to Chomsky?

Are you now saying that we should trust no political commentator? If so, your point seems rather wasted if it was meant as a goal against Chomsky.

I trust no political commentator to be right, or even to be acurate in their facts. That is why I read them, not to find out what to think, but so I can come to my own conclusion what to think.

Thomas Paine said something like "He who reads nothing but newspapers is often more ignorant on an issue then he who reads nothing at all."

Do I often share Chomsky's conclusions, yes. Why is this? Because we start from the same point. Power and victors paint the world in their own hue. ie, not only to they write history, they write the news too.

Secondly I have some responsibility for what my government does. Sadly I have no influence over many parts of the world, all I can do is observe and disapprove. However of my own government I have a responsibility to hold them to account. It is my democratic mandate they claim to use for their actions, my taxes they use in their operations.

Note I do not hold the west to a higher standard --specifically Britain, since I am British - but I have a reponsibility to apply that standard here, in a way it is not in my power to apply it elsewhere. It is easy to accuse someone elses government, or anther people of being immoral, for that you will get support.

Just look at all the news coverage on the Olympic torch, We should have marked the 5th anniversary of Iraq with some serious political news commentary, yet it passed without a whimper. Why? because few oppose pointing out another people's crimes, but many oppose pointing out the crimes of their own country.

Thirdly: We should apply the same standard to our own actions as we apply to others.


When it comes to painting the world in one's own hue, I am not saying America is particalrly worse on this score, it is merely the way the world is and it effects America as much as anyone. The only difference is that America being in the unfortunate position of being the only world power, means Amerca's effects on the world affect far more people, then that of lesser powers.

As for equally applying the same measuring stick to all, we can look at China at the present time. We are told how terrible it is that China will not allow journalists into Tibet - a point I agree upon. And how the western media sings that particular hymn in chorus and at the top of their voice.

Yet, ask why America bans journalists from parts of Baghdad, and the world sings from a different hymn book.

I can understand America warning journalists it is not safe and they go at their own discretion into those areas America is performing military operations in. But for America to say we will not let you go because it is not safe, is stretching the point!

When it comes to trusting political opinions, or any opinion come to that, I do not believe any one is correct, just because they tell me they are. I am willing to disagree with anyone over anything, if there is no evidence for their claims.

I do not read Chomsky because he is right, I read him because he is knowledgeable. But more on that further in the post.

That is not the same thing at all. In fact, you are rejecting the "peer review" that Chomsky has received, by stating it is all biased.

I have never said it is all bias??? They are many who basically share Chomsky's views on things, you make it sould as if he has an opinion shared by only himself, and those who happen to read him.

Peer review happens, I do not understand what your statement means. I said CHomsky is peer reviewed the moment he goes into print, just like any other political commentator.

That seems to be so obviously a truism, I hardly see why you would even want to try and disagree.

I can do that too:

An opinion by Steve.

Here is my opinion(1), which I think is right(2), based on my interpretation(3).

(1) A footnote by me, explaining why I am right.
(2) A footnote containing a reference to someone who agrees with me.
(3) A footnote containing a reference to a previous book of mine in which I showed how everyone else was wrong.

See how the number of footnotes does not, of itself, mean anything?

Incidentally, one of the most infamous footnoters is Terry Pratchett. But that does not mean that the Discworld books are true.

Do not insult people's intelligence Steve. Chomsky does no such thing, and to make say such childish claim shows alack of good faith imo.

Chomsky's footnotes are to news paper articles, official govermnet papers, other journalists in print, etc., and he is just as likely to quote or footnote someone who disagrees with him, as he is someone who agrees.

When a person footnotes academic books, government papers, journalists of all political colours, historians etc, it gives you the option to follow up on those sources.

I am more suspicious of people who provide no footnotes. In other words, they just want you to accept their claims.

Also, I would like to point out that although I have respect for Hitchens, I do have issues with some of the points he makes, for the very reason I have issues with some of the points Chomksy makes. The fact that his views are considered extreme by many of his peers leads me to wonder about them.

Of course you should wonder about them. But that does not in itself make them false, Chomsky provides the information you need to come to your own conclusion.

A group of people sharing a common opinion does not make the opinion right or wrong!! A right opinion shared by one or by all is a right opinion. A wrong opinion shared by one or all, is still a wrong opinion.

Your point seems to be rather trivial. It is not what someones opinion is, or how far it is shared or rejectd by others that make an opinion of worth or worthless. It is the facts the opinion is based upon, a correct undestanding of them, and a good argument based on those facts that make an opinion worth listening to.

To be honest Steve, I care little for the court of public opinion, or peer pressure to conform.
Or for the wish to be a renagade, and the status of 'hero' that may or may not bestow in soneones eyes.

It is the facts and the validity of the argument based on those facts that should count, and nothing else.

Final point. Chomsky's often begins by looking at the standard opinion, and then reviews it to see if it is correct.

The idea that he ignores sources, or facts that may disagree with his point of view is simply hogwash in my opinion.

If you want to convince me of that, you can. Provide the evidence. However, you have not done that.

State an issue chomsky is in print about, and show how he has ignored relevent facts that would disprove his opinion.

19. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160136 by ungodlystheist on April 13, 2008 at 5:27 pm

Offir

>Where is the moral divide?

Sorry, I can't figure how to do these nice looking comments that everybody else is...

Offir
You use < blockquote > at the beginning and < /blockquote > at the end. But leave no gaps in between the tags and the blockquotes.

The moral divide is the willingness of most secular westerners to co-exist while the muslim world is awash with fascistic ideas of world domination. There's no clear leadership, except Allah who speaks in vague verses called the Quran.

With such astute political anylisis like that, you will obviously understand the any complex political issue lol

Here is a simple test for you. What Western state/country/land is occupied by a 'Muslim' state?

Now which Muslim states/country/land is occupied by Western powers??

I suppose the fact that I even make such an observation will mark me as a Muslim loving hippy in your eyes??? To which all I would say "Cool man! When your finished with the joint, save some for me."

20. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160126 by ungodlystheist on April 13, 2008 at 5:07 pm

Steve

Sure. Someone is not going to select sources to back up an opponent's point of view.

I would be more confident about such sources if the article using them had been subject to peer review, as in scientific papers.

Firstly: That is hardly a justification of your refusal to read Chomsky, on a matter you misunderstand him and falsely accuse him, while saying that you believe one should read from a wide source on an issue.

Secondly: what journalism is subject to the kind of peer review that scientific papers are subject too?

Even Hitchins, who you appear to admire, politically, could not be said to have his work peer reviewed, in the same way as scientists papers are peer reviewed.

Academics/journalists/political pundits are instantly subject to peer review the moment they go into print. I hardly see how you can think Chomsky escapes this.

This is a false measuring stick, which if factual, no ones political anylisis would stand, not merely Chomsky's.

One of the things about Chomsky, if one reads any of his political tombs - not books of interviews - you will find that his works are one of the most heavy footnoted pieces of political commentry that exists. At least no one footnotes more, and many, definately Hitchins footnotes a lot less.

Now the good thing about footnotes, it inables one to follow up and do ones own research. This allows you to draw ones own conclusion on the opinions being offered.

21. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160122 by ungodlystheist on April 13, 2008 at 4:54 pm

Comment #160032 by Plasticity

THOUGHTSONCOMMONTOAD: Think for a moment. Shouldn't we take the intentions of the protagonists into account when we decide how morally outraged we should be? Chomsky (and yourself, I think) suggest that the destruction of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant (faulty intelligence) was worse than the INTENTIONAL murder of 3000 people on 9/11.

First of all your claim that it was faulty intelligence, is one widely disputed in many quarters. It is certainly one I am not inclined to believe looking at the evidence.

Just think if the attack had been against America, would america see faulty intelligence as a sign of good "moral intention." To ask the question, is to answer it in my view.

I ageee with Chomsky when he says "if something is a crime when it's committed against us, it's a crime when we commit it against others. If there is a simpler moral truism than that, I'd like to hear it. I think it makes sense to remind people of it. "

Talking about moral intention, in matter of warfare, seems a simple scapegoat to escape responsibilities for one actions, and to always see the 'other side' as being intentionally immoral, while ones own acts of destructioin are intentionally good.

I think both sides of a conflict would use 'intention' to justify their actions. One of the slogans used as Nazi properganda was as follows: "For peace on earth, death to all Jews".

Now if we presume that Nazi's actually believed that, where does that leave the 'moral intention?'

No - forget moral intention, and judge the moral effects of the military action.

I am sure Islamists could argue that they intended to attack the commerce, military, and government HQ of America, the fact that people had to die for that to happen is unfortunate, but necessary.

They could say "Look at the deaths in the Middle East through America's actions. Supplying weapons of mass destrucion to Saddam, and shaking his hands even after he gassed the kurds. Encouraging Iraq to attack Iran, supporting the Shah, and the violent over throw of an Iranian govenment etc.,"

Where is the moral divide?

Or how about this. America used smart bombs to blow up a restaurant in Baghdad just weeks before the war, beliving that Saddam was inside. They also knew that civilians where in the restaurant - was their moral intention to kill Sadam, yes.

Does this mean they are morally excused the deliberate targetting of civilians, in order to kill Sadam? Especially when they are not sure of their intelligence?

Would the families of those killed see the morally good intention behind the action?

Moral intention is a slippery game, one that all sides can play in a conflict.

Since one can never know 'moral intention,' or at least it is very difficult to prove - it is a question, in matters of military conflict, one needs to handle very carefully.

And is it surprising that we see our moral intentions as good, but the moral intention of our enemy as bad. Is not that the view of both sides of almost any conflict? No matter how bazarre their justifications for their 'good' moral intentions may be?

22. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160104 by ungodlystheist on April 13, 2008 at 4:17 pm

Steve: I am grateful for the link, but I can't see that much point in listening. If I want to understand the situation I would like a spread of views. If Chomsky's interpretations is the matter in question, why should I take as evidence Chomsky's views on what he has said?

Steve I find this statemnt to be a contradiction.

You will not bother to listen to Chomsky (even through you have falsely accused his analysis on former Yugoslavia, because you believe one should listen to a 'spread of views'

Well I agree with you about a spread of views - I read from a wide source, left and right, and yes I am most definately a liberal hardline lefty, but you do not want to listen to Chomsky's view, even on a matter where you obviously misunderstand him?

You say you want a wide spread of views, but dismiss Chomsky - one that quotes lots of sources and references, has chomsky does in his published work.

Interesting!!

I also note that you wrote in comment 159593 that

I am saying is that things in general are grey, but that people should be honest about what their actual views are, and not try and hide them in propoganda.

Are you really saying that Chomsky is not honest with his views, that he tries and hides them???
Have you actually read Chomsky????

I presume you must have, but if you really think he hides his views, and it is hard to know where he stands on issues - then you obviously have not comprehended him

23. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160095 by ungodlystheist on April 13, 2008 at 4:04 pm

comment #160034 by ofir on April 13, 2008.

Yes! Israel is a racist terrorist state, and the USA (and the European community at times) acts has it's pimp.

Occupying land, (what do you call settlements -self-defence?!?!?!) is illegal, collective punishment is illegal, cutting off supplies to a civilian population is illegal.

One does not need to read Chomsky to form that opinion, I have been of that opinion since a teenager (decades ago - sadly), and came to that opinion just from watching the evening news.

Israel used terror to get a state (King David Hotel - for example) and now refuse to talk to Palestinians because they use terror to end an occupation.

We are told that Palestinians must recognise Israel, yet Israel never recognises Gaza and the West Bank, but refers to them as Judea and Samaria.

Many Israeli MP's, even deny there is a Palestinian people.


The problems of the Middle East begin and end with Israel - unitl we sort that problem out, the other problems will remain.

24. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #159630 by ungodlystheist on April 12, 2008 at 4:47 pm

Bonzai

Thanks for the info.

I shall look it up.

25. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #159623 by ungodlystheist on April 12, 2008 at 4:35 pm

Bonsai,

Do you know where one can actually read a transcript of the debate.

I am suspicious of reports where people sum up, especially when there is very little quotation from the person being summarised.

I note this summary is of a debate, I would not take anything said in a debate has being someones considered opinion on any issue.

Equivalent can mean different things, the act can be considered moraly equivalent - in that the motivation was the same.

Or the result can be considered consequently equivalent, or worse, because of the actual affects.

Destroying a pharmaceutical drug company making cheap drugs, I would say is definately worse, when it comes to consequences.

26. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #159609 by ungodlystheist on April 12, 2008 at 3:56 pm

Steve,

Well you could say you disagree with his judgement, but I thought you were talking about his honesty.

Well we have left Bosnia behind. Never mind.

But to the issue, I think you are way over simplifying here. Where does Chomsky make this claim?

I am sure read in context he is doing no such thing as equating equivalency to the two acts?

27. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #159586 by ungodlystheist on April 12, 2008 at 3:12 pm

Steve,
I would have to paraphrase Hitchins again, and say I still find your complaint faint.

What is your point here. You mean things must be black and white, because that is the way the world is.

I agree, Hitchins does do that, in politics.

To say Chomsky is not honest, without giving an actual example (One that is clearly defined and not faint) of his dishinesty, could be said to be, what shall we say, "Dishonest!"

Well, no that would be to strong, more accurate to say "disingeneous."

You need to give an actual example, a real solid tangible one, not a 'sort of' one.

28. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #159565 by ungodlystheist on April 12, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Hi Steve,

Can't say that you have.

Yes you mention Bosnia, yes you mention Srebrenica, but what are you claiming that Chomsky says, that you think is untruthful? or at best one-sided?

All I have seen - I apologise if I missed something - is the apparent claim (As ever I find you hard to pin down - to paraphrase Hitchins "There is something faint about the complaint") that Chomsly some how denies, or at least dismisses, the terrible abuse of Srebrenica.

You will neeed to back up that claim. I am aware that Chomsky believes that placing the responsibility of Srebrenika at Milosovic feet, would be hard to prove. But I see no denial of the atrousity, merely denial that ine can simply point the finger at Milosovich and say "He did it!"

29. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #159542 by ungodlystheist on April 12, 2008 at 12:55 pm

I hate people like Peter Hitchins, who have nothing better to do then to continuously slander British people, specifically British Youth.

No wonder he writes for that old Nazi fascist woshipping rag, The Daily Mail.The Daily Mail may have stopped supporting Nazi's when WWII was lost, but its racist, ignorant bigotry abounds at the same appalling rate. Like a limitless font, it pours forth its poison of lies about Britian, as it tries to re-chrisian the British nation.

Hitchins says in Part 6 of the debate, that it is common in Britian, apparently not far from Oxford for people to be kicked to death, two to three times a week.

Where is this fairytale Britian that Pete Hitchins slobers over with self-rightous delight to defend his God belief.

It is a blatent lie, and he lies while arguing for christian morality????

First remove the beam from your own eyem Peter Hitchins, before attempting to remove the splinter from ours.

30. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #159539 by ungodlystheist on April 12, 2008 at 12:32 pm

To slander Chomsky, without providing evidence to back up the claim is hardly honest.

To hint that there is something wrong about Chomsky, but one cannot quite remember exactly what it is, but it is there,etc., without providing actual details sounds like hot air to me.

Chomsky provides very claear statements, with references from them. If one disagree with his conclusion on an issue, then rather then create false smoke screens name the issue, say what Chomsky as said, and explain why one thinks nhis conclusion is wrong, because of 'selected' facts on Chomsky's part.

It is easy to make an accusation, but an accusation with out proof, leaves me thinking of the British childhood saying, when some one points the finger of accusation at someone: "There are three fingers pointing back at you."

To accuse people of worshipping Chomsky, because people ask for proof, when someone wants to dismiss Chomsky as being either unknowingly selected with his facts, or worse, hint that he is knowingly being deceitful by ignoring facts, is again just another smoke screen.

Who woships Chomsky? Just becuase one finds his anylisis on situations to be insightful, does not make one a blind brown-nosed arse sniffer.

31. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145569 by ungodlystheist on March 17, 2008 at 6:01 pm

al-rawadi,

I do also, I just find it hard to take clerics seriously.

32. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #145561 by ungodlystheist on March 17, 2008 at 5:55 pm

According to D'souza's new book, we are the reason that 9/11 took place. Apparently atheism has so weakened America, that the country is now at risk from outside forces.

How should we translate this piece of nonsence.
D'Souza appears to be saying "Do as I say, and America will be great".

He is an egomanic.

33. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145557 by ungodlystheist on March 17, 2008 at 5:51 pm

al-rawandi,

A further comment I have been meaning to add to the suicide bombing/Islam discussion, but keep forgetting.

I wonder how many here know that Nasrallah, (Hezbollah's mad man in a dress, leader) had a change of heart about suicide bombings, and now condemns them as unislamic.

I wonder if this is the reason suicide bombings have dropped in Israel, and that rocket attacks are now more common.

34. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145542 by ungodlystheist on March 17, 2008 at 5:34 pm

al-rawdi,

I agree morality is an evolutionary trait born from the need to cooperate. But like Dawkins I also think that for self-conscious reflecting beings, it also applies to creatures who are not able to join the social contract.

35. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145538 by ungodlystheist on March 17, 2008 at 5:30 pm

al-rawandi,

I share your shock and awe.

Every time Israel shoots rockets into heavily populated Gaza, ( - a bit like shooting fish in a barrell - consideringa place that is no better then an open prision where the local civilian population cannot even leave and seek refuge) is called self defence.

I am shocked and awed that when Israel sends tanks across the border into Gaza and shoots civilians - it is called defence.

I am still surprised tat when Palestinians fight back against Israeli soldiers, they are call terrorists ad millitants for doing so.

Still shocked and aweed that Israel can occupy the West Bank (and Gaza - considering they control everything, and every one, going in and out) and Palestinians are called the aggressors.

Still shocked and awed that in order to defend themselve from Palestinians, Jewish settlers move, with their children into settlements and toens like Hebron! almost 40% of all settlers are under 16 years of age.

Still shocked and awed that Israel openly refers to itself as a Jewish state and the world is not appalled.

Still shocked and awed, that any Jew can settle in Israel, yet Palestinians refuees are told there is not the space for them to return to their homes.

I am still shocked and awed that Hamas is tol it must recognise Israel, yet Israel refuses to clarify her borders, and Israel always refers to Gaza and West Bank as Judea and Samaria, clearly refusing to recognise Gaza and West Bank as occupied terrortories.

I am shocked and awed that whenever Israel kills a Hamas Militant, they are always senior leaders of hamas, apparently everyone in Hamas is a senior leader.

I am shocked and awed that Israel can kill Palestinians, tell the world that the Palestnian was a militant, and this is accepted though Israel rarely provides proof.

Well I could go on, but you get the idea

36. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145531 by ungodlystheist on March 17, 2008 at 5:18 pm

al-rawandi

I am not a Kantian when it comes to ethics, though I agree that the rule is good.

For me we have to start by asking what it is we seek to prevent when discussion ethics.

Everyone seeks to avoid arm. That instinct is an evolutionary trait, (which is why we have nerves etc).

Once we recognise that fact, and as self-conscious reflecting sentient beings we do, then Kant rules "Would you allow it be done to you?" comes into play.

Not a big fan of social contract theory ethics, as it can exclude those who are not able to enter into the contract. Though I agree that ethics is the basis for social contracts, and are what bind a society.

37. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145500 by ungodlystheist on March 17, 2008 at 4:51 pm

Well may be we agree, and it is just words, not so sure.

I would certainly say ethics is not a matter of feelings, sounds to much like saying ethics is a matter of personal/societal preferences.

I like a bit of genital mutilation on my infants, but if it is not your thing, I am happy with that too.

No, genital mutilation of infants is wrong!

38. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #145496 by ungodlystheist on March 17, 2008 at 4:47 pm

About the funeral stuff etc,

Recently my partner and I of 15 years had a civil union, more for tax purposes then romance - definately more for tax purposes!!

I discovered from the registrar who did the ceremony that in Britian, registrars can now perform funerals, and soon may be offering naming ceremonies for babies.

Did not really want to have to get a secular humanist officiatig- not because I oppose, but because it still looks for many people like a 'religious thing' (it would to some of my family anyway)

I love the idea of the local registrar officiating at my secular funeral. It almost makes me contemplate suicide ;-) I have been working on my funeral ever since!

39. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145483 by ungodlystheist on March 17, 2008 at 4:33 pm

We