Tuesday 10 May 2011

Christopher Hitchens: Chomsky's Follies

From the fevered imagination of exilestreet at 21:11

3 comments:

  1. bob nebe11 May 2011 at 06:25

    Good to see you covering both sides of the arguement, this guy is just plain wrong. The evidence hasnt been shown, one has to wonder if the us admin have the same quality intel on this as the Hussain WMP's.
    Noam hasnt said he's not involved, just theres scant evidence and that Bin Laden should have at lest had the same treatment/rights as the Nazis war crims and been sent to trial.
    The authour completely missed that this was a central point in Chomsky's argument and didnt even comment on it!

    ReplyDelete
  2. exilestreet11 May 2011 at 09:27

    2Bob/
    You hit the nail on the head...this is the result of Hitchen's skewered pro-US led Bush/Obama war viewpoint and tho not a fan of this article, I am a fan of Hitchens in general and yeah it's good to share BOTH sides of the arguements!
    Regards/

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous3 June 2011 at 08:01

    The evidence has been shown and it isn't scant. Bin Laden's claim of responsibility is almost enough. Besides this,the evidence includes the following: 1)The Germans monitored communications showing that Al Qaeda's Hamburg cell had prior knowledge of the attacks. 2)The FBI said several of the hijackers were trained in Al Qaeda camps. 3)In an interview with Al Jazeera, two Al Qaeda men took credit. 4)A videotape was released showing one of the martyrs calling Bin Laden "the leader". 5) The Washington Post reported that Al Qaeda's treasurer gave money to some of the hijackers 6)The New York Times reported that in 2000,military intelligence identified four of the future hijackers as Al Qaeda men.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)