1. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #226928 by Plasticity on August 9, 2008 at 12:27 am

Just read Purves' reply here:

http://timesonline.typepad.com/faith/2008/08/darwin-dawkins.html

I thought this was very revealing of her overall position:

Meanwhile the Theos think-tank about faith has set up a project with the Faraday Institute and a grant from the Templeton Foundation , to conduct a project aimed at the Darwin anniversary. Its director writes to me:
"Basically the idea is to 'Rescue Darwin' from the crossfire of a battle (between the creationists and public atheists) that he had little personal interest in. There's more to it than that, but the main objective will be a kind of 'plague on both your houses', arguing that both the creationists/IDers and the militant atheists are wrong, that Darwinian evolution is compatible with Christianity...

Aside from my personal opinion that this is utter twaddle, I'm a bit shocked to see that Purves thinks a 'project' sponsored by the Templeton Foundation should be referenced as the moderate voice of reason. Hello? The Templeton Foundation? I haven't brought myself to check out the "Theos think-tank" yet, whatever that is.

2. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #220576 by Plasticity on July 28, 2008 at 3:37 pm

MPhil: You wrote that Dawkins makes a good case but his philosophical arguments are quite shallow when compared to such people as John Leslie Mackie ("The Miracle of Theism").

Reading about the philosophical and theological arguments for the existence of God in depth has never really struck me as a constructive use of ones time. I did briefly consider reading Mackie until I came accross this appraisal by Jason Rosenhouse:

Dawkins frequently refers people to other books that give more detailed coverage of the topics he was discussing. One example is J.L. Mackie's The Miracle of Theism. Many critics have cited this book as one people should read if they want, you know, a serious treatment of arguments for the existence of God. Now don't misunderstand me: Mackie is brilliant, his arguments are spot-on, and the world is a better place because he wrote that book. But, I'm sorry, his book is incredibly dense, difficult to read, and frankly, incredibly boring. And I say that as someone who finds this subject fascinating.

As a consequence I didn't bother reading it. From what I recall, Dawkins in TGD basically argued that theology isn't worth the time or the effort, and I don't see what's wrong with that.

I think that the depth of philosophy in TGD is perfectly adequate for the vast majority of readers, and I'm not sure that a philosophical rebuttal of theism above and beyond TGD is required reading.

I know you're really into your philosophy and all, but I'd like to know if you really think non-academic philosophers would find the books you recommend rewarding, bearing in mind the time and effort involved which could be spent reading other books.

3. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168427 by Plasticity on April 25, 2008 at 6:21 am

Note to self: remember the term "green-inker". I like it, and want to use it in conversation when appropriate.

4. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166846 by Plasticity on April 23, 2008 at 1:01 pm

MPhil:

Hey, I'm with you all the way there. Think you might be doing a bit of epistemological nitpicking though.

assume: to take for granted or without proof (dictionary.com)

Since ID is creationism in disguise, it starts with ontological pluralism, assuming the existence of the supernatural. Which is in itself incompatible with science.

I certainly can't argue with that.

5. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166804 by Plasticity on April 23, 2008 at 12:40 pm

no conceptual scheme starts from nothing - science neither

Yes, but science ASSUMES nothing, if you know what I mean. ID starts with a designer as a given, and proceeds from there.

Spot on with the logical standards, evaluation of evidence etc.

6. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166774 by Plasticity on April 23, 2008 at 12:24 pm

Well, you evolutionists, let's start at the beginning. Can't do it can you?

And you can? Well, like I say, submit your evidence for peer review. It must be pretty solid.

I hope you fare better than the last ID people who went to court and tried to present it as a science.

7. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166755 by Plasticity on April 23, 2008 at 12:11 pm

I am stating the fact of a supernatural designer of life derived from the scientific evidence

Hmmm.

Let's see:

Refuses to answer questions? Check.

Calls people who 'believe in' evolution arrogant, whilst claiming to know everything? Check.

Manifestly obviously does not understand evolution, or the scientific usage of the word theory? Check.

Selectively quotes Richard Dawkins out of context? Check.

I'm spotting a pattern here.

Proper science involves starting at the beginning and assuming nothing. Your ID pseudo science starts by asking a teleological question, and inserts a designer into every gap in your 'knowledge'. That isn't science.

By the way, if you have scientific proof of a supernatural designer I suggest you submit it for peer review. Your nobel prize awaits.

8. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #161370 by Plasticity on April 15, 2008 at 8:13 am

al-rawandi,

I do agree that all death is pretty bad (putting it mildly). It wasn't my intention to draw a distinction in that respect.

EDIT: and no, I haven't conceded anything. I'm not saying whose deaths are 'worse'. I'm saying the act of America bombing Al Shifa was not in the same league as the acts of al-Qaeda on 9/11.

9. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #161355 by Plasticity on April 15, 2008 at 7:47 am

Al-rawandi, I appreciate your last post. However, I think it is unfounded to claim that my distinctions are 'arrogant.'
Still, we've both made our opinions clear.

10. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #161328 by Plasticity on April 15, 2008 at 7:09 am

Rawandi: Is Harris' argument entirely incorrect?

I am not for a moment suggesting that the al shifa bombing was a harmless incident. Far from it. The point I have been arguing is that it is wrong to say it was worse than 9/11. That is all.

I have no respect for you or your "regurgitation" argument. One can form an opinion based on a number of different sources. I agree with Harris. Whose opinion do you "regurgitate" on this matter? You didn't investigate the whole thing with primary sources yourself, did you?

I'm assuming you are with Chomsky on the casualty figures, and the 9/11 comparison. This is a good, detailed summary of Chomsky's flaws in this respect:

http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2004/10/chomsky_redux.html

If you don't agree, fine. But don't try to imply that I don't think Al Shifa was horrific. That is dishonest. If that wasn't your intention, I apologise.

11. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #161157 by Plasticity on April 15, 2008 at 1:13 am

UNGODLYSTHEIST:

You accuse me of misquoting Chomsky. A quick search would suggest otherwise:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A27441-2002May3?language=printer

Interview by Michael Powell, Sunday, May 5, 2002, Washington Post (I apologise for attributing this to 9/11, I haven't got my copy with me):

"The Americans didn't even think about the outcome of the bombing," he says, "because the Sudanese were so far below contempt as to be not worth thinking about."
His mind leaps to ants. Suppose he walks down the sidewalk in Cambridge and without, a second thought, steps on an ant.
"That would mean that I regard the ant as beneath contempt," he says. "And that's morally worse than if I purposely killed that ant. So, if we're not moral hypocrites, we'd agree that Sudan was the morally worse crime than the World Trade -- "

The link above also contains a more recent take from Hitchens on Chomsky: "Christopher Hitchens, the Nation columnist, turned on his old moral tutor in a splenetic display, averring that Chomsky's opposition to a war in Afghanistan did 'not rise above the level of half truth' and that the professor's 'remorseless logic has degraded into flat-out irrationality.'"

"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!"

Clearly neither of us are. You wrote:

"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.'"

Wheen didn't start criticising Chomsky in response to that article, did he? The South African Mail & Guardian, concluded that "Chomsky does try to minimise the Srebrenica atrocity... Brockes cannot be accused of misrepresenting his essential position." So that article was not 'completely discredited'.

""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!"

I said nothing like that.

"I care little for arguing about moral intentions."

I can see that. You say that intentions do not matter, for various reasons. Intentions aren't everything in ethics, but they do matter. If you don't agree, fine - but I completely disagree with you.

"I do not reject Hitchins out of hand because he supports the war on Iraq."

Neither do I. But the fact that you say the Hitchens article proves your position doesn't make it so. I agree with you, people should draw their own conclusions.

"Tell me does Wheen present any foototes sighting his sources? ... (He asks us just to take his word)

Wheen quotes Chomsky at length. I see nothing to suggest that he has slandered or deliberately misquoted him. Whilst we are on the subject of footnotes and source accuracy:

Carroll Bogert, Communications Director of Human Rights Watch:
"Noam Chomsky states in a Jan. 16 interview with Suzy Hansen, "That one bombing [of the al-Shifa plant in Sudan], according to the estimates made by the German Embassy in Sudan and Human Rights Watch, probably led to tens of thousands of deaths." In fact, Human Rights Watch has conducted no research into civilian deaths as the result of U.S. bombing in Sudan and would not make such an assessment without a careful and thorough research mission on the ground. We have conducted research missions and issued such estimates for Iraq and Yugoslavia, after U.S. bombing campaigns there. In our experience, trenchant and effective criticism of U.S. military action requires factual investigation."

I am fairly confident that you will dismiss this next link out of hand. Nevertheless, this addresses the Al Shifa 9/11 issue very well, quotes Chomsky in depth and examines his responses to criticism:

http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2004/10/chomsky_redux.html

I am not overly keen on responding at length to more of your posts, which by your own admission are of "windbag" proportions, so I will summarise my position (maybe you could do the same?):

You seem to take everything Chomsky writes at face value. I think the way he attributes all the evils of the world to America is simplistic. I also think his judgement is affected by his bias, notably in the Al Shifa 9/11 comparison.

EDIT: sorry about my lack of blockquoting until now...

12. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #161138 by Plasticity on April 14, 2008 at 11:09 pm

Ungodlystheist:

"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."

Actually this is NOT MY POSITION AT ALL. I think this suspicion may be why you and rawandi wanted some sort of summary of Al-Qaeda's motivation from me.
If you can't digest what is there in black and white in my previous posts then maybe you should expect scorn...
I repeat myself for clarification:

Chomsky has made very valid and important points. America is guilty of imperialist crimes.

OK?

My problem with Chomsky is that he blames America for everything. He said that the Al-Shifa bombing was morally worse than 9/11, which isn't the case.

13. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160923 by Plasticity on April 14, 2008 at 2:45 pm

"You are new, so you get the scrutiny until you are a bona fide ass hole. You have a few stripes to earn."
What's with the discussion forum elitism? I don't have to earn my "stripes" for you, moron.

"And your premise is wrong. There is nothing guaranteed in a terrorist attack. It is luck, you may or may not live in the city targeted."

You'd be more likely to survive in a city where a structure was targeted at night with a precision strike with some effort to avoid civilian casualties, as opposed to an attack in which civilian targets were considered a bonus. Wouldn't you?

14. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160905 by Plasticity on April 14, 2008 at 2:33 pm

Steve:
I see what you are saying, and I agree with you. But I interpreted the option as either:

A) Be definitely killed
B) Be ignored, and so not be specifically targeted

So I chose B. My perspective was possibly skewed as I was envisioning either an attacker that was hellbent on taking life, or one that saw my possible death as peripheral to his cause.

I also sympathise with you when you say you don't like the tone. I don't think I'm the only one being abrasive at this point, though.

15. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160885 by Plasticity on April 14, 2008 at 2:14 pm

"You accusations that I am fucked up, for exploring a moral question, is really piss poor."

Oh dear.

You asked me:
"So what is worse, intentionally causing civilian casualties or being absolutely indifferent".
The answer is intentionally killing people. That is worse.

If you meant to ask:

"Is it better to kill someone for political gain or kill them for financial gain?"
... or something along those lines you should have phrased it differently. I suppose you think you're being rational, don't you?

You're still being hormonal, by the way.

16. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160875 by Plasticity on April 14, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Rawandi: nope, I don't see what you expect me to argue with or disagree with in your motivational assessment.
The indifference to civilian deaths aspect - isn't this self evident in the 9/11 attacks?

"you have refused to answer any question posed of you" riiight.

"I have given examples, with precise numbers... see Iraq sanctions... which you of course ignored... no doubt due to my "mentality". "
No, I just don't see how they are relevant. AS I HAVE SAID I DON'T TAKE ISSUE WITH THEM. Hormonal teenager.

17. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160864 by Plasticity on April 14, 2008 at 1:46 pm

"So what is worse, intentionally causing civilian casualties or being absolutely indifferent."

Isn't intentionally killing people worse? If you don't think that, your ethics are pretty messed up.

"Civilians are only avoided because..." well, at least by your estimation they try to avoid them in the first place. You're pretty fucked up, rawandi.

18. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160855 by Plasticity on April 14, 2008 at 1:32 pm

al-rawandi / ungodlystheist:

I'm still not sure why you are hanging on an explanation of al-Qaeda's motives from me. The only aspect of al-Qaeda I have mentioned in any argument is their lack of respect for human life outside of Islam.

Tell you what, enlighten me. What motivates al-Qaeda?

Actually al-rwandi, I object to both the form and the 'message' (highly revealing of your mentality, that word). I find that when people start with the tired rhetorical crutch of asking loaded questions, with the purpose of forcing a yes/no answer then launching into a monologue in response to the answer, then they have no 'substantive position'. Act your age, rawandi...

19. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160840 by Plasticity on April 14, 2008 at 1:09 pm

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

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

"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.

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.

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

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.

"Shame on you."

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

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

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."


"Ah name calling in place of argument."

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.

20. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160712 by Plasticity on April 14, 2008 at 10:04 am

al-rawandi: You skipped from *Let's argue about Chomsky* to *Let's argue about US foreign Policy* to *Let's have an argument over the use of the term 'Islamism'* to *Let's have an argument about Israel, and spuriously call somebody racist while we're at it*.
My lack of desire to humour you isn't reactionary, it's sensible. If you think you are being fair with people and ideas I can only assume you haven't been sleeping properly of late.

21. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160687 by Plasticity on April 14, 2008 at 9:26 am

"...didn't have the intellectual courage to answer the question." ???

Don't have the time to waste engaging unreasonable, abrasive teenagers in online arguments.

So B - Troll.

22. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160663 by Plasticity on April 14, 2008 at 9:06 am

Putting words in peoples mouths again al-rawandi? Troll. Not interested anymore. You might want to consider posting on sherdog or something. That's more your kind of place.

23. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160649 by Plasticity on April 14, 2008 at 8:56 am

al-rawandi, if you want to have a discussion it might help if you posted in a fashion less like that of a hormonal teenager. It is clear from ofirs previous posts that he is not a racist.

24. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160627 by Plasticity on April 14, 2008 at 8:44 am

"The fact that you claim yourself as a Zionist, being that Israel is the culmination of Zionism, shows you as a racist."

Oh, come on. That clearly isn't the case. That is a groundless ad hominem that has no place in a forum like this.

25. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160617 by Plasticity on April 14, 2008 at 8:30 am

al-rawandi,

Sorry, I mean Islamism not Islam. A Literal interpretation of the Koran with a worldview espousing violence and intolerance, repression of women and the like.
Historically, this is very distinct from the more scientific Islam that preserved the science and philosophy of the Greeks. I suppose it is also a necessary distinction to make in order to separate Islamism from a comparatively moderate Islam.

I don't understand what you mean by 'you take it as some foregone notion... sloganeering' etc.

26. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160585 by Plasticity on April 14, 2008 at 8:03 am

AL-RAWANDI:

I think you may be trying to engage me in an argument against a position that I don't hold. Do you want me to say that Western foreign policy hasn't resulted in massive anti-western sentiments? That isn't going to happen. It clearly has.

I'm curious to know if you think Islamism is a cause of why 'they' hate us independent of the malignant foreign policy you've just mentioned, though.

27. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160556 by Plasticity on April 14, 2008 at 7:42 am

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

"But that debate takes us far away from the present discussion"

Yes it does...

"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."

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.

28. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160514 by Plasticity on April 14, 2008 at 7:10 am

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

Why? Do you assume (incorrectly) that I am right wing because I have issues with Chomsky's analysis? I think you're being a little over-simplistic here.

29. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160507 by Plasticity on April 14, 2008 at 7:03 am

"Your dogmatic position regarding Chomsky is impressive."
AL-RAWANDI

It isn't dogmatic. Read my posts? The one where I said Chomsky makes very valid and important points? That the US is, as he says, guilty of imperialist crimes? Hello?

My objection, as you say is:
"...Chomsky seems to blame America for every death, political problem, and rained out picnic in the entire world."

Chomsky hasn't whitewashed the acts of Islamic terrorism. Don't put words in my mouth. He just cannot bring himself to admit that they are worse than the US in any respect, or more morally reprehensible than the US at any point - despite evidence that points to the contrary. Hence my problem with his comments on Cambodia.

OK?

30. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160421 by Plasticity on April 14, 2008 at 4:36 am

"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.' "
UNGODLYSTHEIST

The article in question was printed on October 31, 2005.

"How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered The World" by Francis Wheen, complete with the aforementioned criticisms of Chomsky was published in 2004.

"The End of Faith" by Sam Harris, complete with the aforementioned section 'Leftist Unreason and the Strange Case of Noam Chomsky' was also published in 2004.

Please consider this post my peer review of your last one ;O>

31. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160325 by Plasticity on April 14, 2008 at 12:26 am

UNGODLYSTHEIST:

Thanks for the filibuster.

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.

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.

These two scenarios are in completely different moral universes.

Who is doing the 'moral scapegoating' here? you say:

"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."

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.

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. 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.

32. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160067 by Plasticity on April 13, 2008 at 3:34 pm

THOUGHTSONCOMMONTOAD:

It is not a question of not railing against other forms of injustice. It is a question of "strenuously downplaying the scale of their [Pol Pot, Khmer Rouge etc] terror and doubting even the most carefully verified evidence." So the Chomsky quote you selected does not answer the charge.

I have read his 9/11 book too, and if anything it is Chomsky who is indulging in moral equivalence. His charge that the US bombing of the Al Shifa plant (FAULTY INTELLIGENCE) was worse than 9/11 (INTENTIONAL MURDER) is fallacious. I again ask you to contrast the intentions of the perpetrators in those attacks.

Your actuarial assertion that the Al Shifa plant bombing was "without a doubt more destructive numerically" is speculative. More importantly, would the 9/11 hijackers have wiped every American off the map - not just the World Trade Centre - given the chance? Yes. Intention is key in any moral issue.

33. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160032 by Plasticity on April 13, 2008 at 2:33 pm

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.

Chomsky has made a lot of very valid, very important points. However, he has become so accustomed to (rightly) railing against American Imperialism he now fails to acknowledge that there are other sources of injustice and wrongdoing on the world stage that urgently need to be met.

I quote Francis Wheen, hardly a bastion of Neo Conservative sentiment:

"Noam Chomsky has always given the benefit of the doubt to 'Anti American' regimes such as Pol Pot and Slobodan Milosevic, strenuously downplaying the scale of their terror and doubting even the most carefully verified evidence. With the United States, by contrast, no proof is required. In October 2001 he stated as a fact that Pentagon strategists were planning 'the slaughter and silent genocide' of three or four million Afgans during their Military campaign against the Taliban. What was Chomsky's source for this shocking information? Answer came there none: by the time the Taliban fell - with no genocide, silent or otherwise - he and his army of disciples had already changed the subject again."

If anyone has access to a copy of "The End of Faith" you may want to look up the section entitled "Leftist Unreason and the Strange Case of Noam Chomsky" for a reasonable summary.

34. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #159096 by Plasticity on April 11, 2008 at 12:34 pm

Check out comment number 4 from this thread by Fanusi Khiyal:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1842,Neuroscience-and-Moral-Politics-Chomskys-Intellectual-Progeny,Gary-Olson

eric you can find some of this on pages 302-304 of Francis Wheen's "How Mumbo-Jumbo conquered the world". It transpires that Chomsky also whinged that 'the positive side of the Khmer Rouge picture has been virtually edited out'.

You can find out alot more just by simple googling. Here is a good article on the subject:

http://newcriterion.com:81/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm

Bottom line: This man should be regarded as we now regard those intellectuals of whom Orwell reports that they 'contrived to remain ignorant of the true events of Buchenwald for six years' even to the extent of ignoring the testimonies of survivors.