Official name for that aircraft is the Thunderbolt so I think it means we kicked Thor's ass.

Edit: Maybe Zeus, not sure.

Hitchens

Chomsky was raising questions about why the U.S failed to provide evidence to the taliban for OBLs extradition. He's referring only to the months following 9/11 when he assumes the U.S didnt have it. Otherwise why wouldnt the U.S have just shown it and wisk OBL to trail(his logic)? Hitchens topsy turvied that into "Chomsky says OBLs innocent"

not a fan sorry

ty, g1

I meant to put the actual term ******* in my post, but it was censored, obv.

Chomsky talks about that period and then says, "Nothing serious has been provided since." And then he goes on to say there was "much media discussion of Washington’s anger that Pakistan didn’t turn over bin Laden..." and trails off into some anti-American rant without answering his own question. Then he starts rambling about a hypothetical raid to get GWB by Iraqi commandos...

Are you sure you read it?

I believe he had a dramatic influence on the field of linguistics.

Chomsky:

Hitchens:

Hitchens is merely restating what Chomsky says himself. Chomsky clearly doesn't believe the U.S. has any evidence that OBL was responsible for 9/11, and Hitchens is, rightly, lambasting him for such insanity. When Chomsky mentions the U.S.'s failure to provide evidence to the Taliban, that is only one of many provocative, doubt-inducing points he makes in the opening two paragraphs. Hitchens is taking him to task for this.

For example, in Chomsky's opening paragraph, he also says:

Hitchens never says that Chomsky claims OBL is innocent. This is what Hitchens said:

Regarding a debate Hitchens had with Michael Moore, the word "innocent" comes into play:

And, finally, Hitchens says this, which is really his thesis with respect to Chomsky:

Chomsky hated truthers, yet Hitchens sets up room to equivocate the two in the beginning of the article. Fail imo.

Later he does something similar when he starts attacking the paranoid anti-war left wing. The left isn't anti-war though, they all support Obama who is obv not anti-war. The paranoid anti-war party has no party right now.

Chomskys argument is that the case against OBL is weak. The only part where Hitchens addresses this directly is when he calls into question whether Chomsky has pored over 911 Commission report, among other material. Idk, has he? Hitchens doesn't prove that the case against OBL is strong himself, he only defers to other documents along with making false analogies about Chomsky--or rather leads an unsuspecting reader to make the jump themselves.

Do you believe the U.S. would not be able to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were responsible for 9/11?

Chomsky's thoughts on me:

I once engaged in an interesting internet discussion board for a class on American LIterature of the Progressive Era. The professor was friends with Chomsky and brought him into the conversation to directly address my comments on the discussion board. Chomsky generally agreed with the facts of my argument -- which was basically a moderately detailed history of the Russian Revolution -- and concluded that the main disagreement between my position and that of the professor (self-avowed communist) was merely the framing of our positions.

As a freshman/junior undergrad, I thought that was kind of neat.

/delusions of grandeur, Brool Story Co., etc.

I think that's beyond the scope of his weekly Slate column. They're usually just short opinion pieces and don't really ever go into detail on the subjects he addresses.

your right...my bad

agreed thanks

I'm not sure. The 911 Commission report is not a strong document, generally speaking. Some issues in them that Hitchens may be referring possibly include confessions from people who had been waterboarded, which brings up the issue of whether their confession is reliable for example. There are more gray areas in it than it seems he believed the report contained, and this has been noted rather openly, by the Commissioners themselves.

The case against bin Laden would have been, conspiracy to let others commit murder? All the actual murderers died on 911. So he would maybe be an accessory to murder, I'm not sure of the technical charge that would have been brought if he were captured, but I think this was part of the FBI's lack of hard evidence they had against him. He didn't kill anyone, he didn't force anyone to kill anyone, as heinous as he is made out to be, there just isn't much to work with.

Ah that makes sense, yea. I like Hitchens, but couldn't help noticing some hit-pieceish type tactics.

Maybe Chomsky shouldn't release something so lazy as a response. I'm surprised by it. He's generally better than that.

I didn't think it was that great a column, given he usual standards, but he was still generally right. Chomsky saying "nothing serious has been provided since" is so ignorant and wrong I don't even know where to begin. Like Hitchens said (for all its flaws) read the 9/11 report, read Lawrence Wright, Peter Bergen and John Burns, read the transcripts of the trial of the 20th hijacker, read the statements of KSM (waterboarding aside for a moment), read the captured documents which the US has shown (and there are plenty they haven't), watch the videos of the hijackers with bin Laden, etc etc.

It's just absurd to say that bin Laden's "confession" has about as much value as Chomsky bragging he just won the Boston Marathon.

Terrible, lazy, ignorant article by Chomsky.

I really don't understand why Chomsky seemed so insistent that there is IN FACT little evidence against Osama, but I think his article would have been fine if he insisted that hearing that evidence in a court of some kind is what should have happened. There seems to be much evidence against Osama, most notably his own confessions, but if Chomsky wants to argue that the proper place for evidence to be presented so that punishment can be meted out is in a courtroom, his article is fine.

I also think it's fine for him to say that our skepticism of government should be so high that we need to hold out some chance that the guy who is the ultimate bad guy, the worst villain in the world has been subjected to a smear campaign and thus the government needs to prove it's case in court before unilaterally deciding to execute someone.

I don't know why he went so far in implying that Osama might actually not be guilty, seems absurd and totally unnecessary for his point.

Crazy old guys gonna crazy old guy, imo

A legendary linguist whose contributions to the field cannot be understated.

His views on economics and criminal justice leave a lot to be desired, in my opinion.

Yeah he doesnt put **** to rest like the mainstream though atleast and used the occasion to basically say that nobody is above the law and that applies to Bush and OBL. He's trying to convey that the guy we wouldnt dream of "bringing to justice" (Bush) is more guilty (from a legal perspective than OBL) because we know for a fact that he ordered this and that while we don't really know **** about OBL.


yeah he's getting old

The evidence for OBL and Al Qaeda being responsible for 9/11 is more than sufficient to dispel reasonable doubt. I applaud skepticism and doubt, holding our government to the fire, questioning, rational inquiry -- but labeling OBL's confession as no more credible than Chomsky claiming he won the Boston Marathon is beyond the pale. This crosses the line from admirable doubt to cranky paranoia, and puts Chomsky in Beck/Jones territory, imo. And I sincerely dig Chomsky, but this puts him desperately out of touch with reality.

The only reason you can't compare Bush and bin Laden is because the imperialist system of justice says that if you live in a cave and fight without markings and entrench yourself with civilians you are committing heinous war crimes, but if you head up a huge, powerful government and send huge numbers of "legitimate" military force to take over or crush other countries you are doing something that is okay.

Bush probably doesn't think he is a bad person, but it's only because most of the commentators and advisors he listens to our products of this system as well. It really is seen as acceptable for huge imperial powers to impose military might, whereas civilian groups subjected to these rampages are always labeled something negative.

If you take a small number of guys without military training and do something horrible that kills a bunch of civilians you are a murderer and a terrorist. That much is clear. But if you do it behind the shield of a large power with sexy military outfits and lots of organized guys and in the spirit of "justice" to get the bad guys, you aren't a criminal even though what you've done is something terrible.

He's smarter and more erudite than most of his critics. This probably means he is not often challenged on a reasonable level and seldom changes his mind. His age does not help either. That said, I think most of his positions are consistent and some are defensible. He accounts for those that think he's a lunatic fairly easily within his political framework, which may or may not be a good thing.

LOL, then perhaps the U.S. should implement the Jihadist system of justice, instead of that mean, nasty, cruel, "imperial" justice.

chomsky > hitchens ainec