|Chomsky: all that learning for just one idea -- American imperialism |
is the beginning and end of all the evil in this world.
I read Noam-Chickens Coming Home to Roost-Chomsky's predictable piece about the Bin Laden killing in
today and wondered what to do with it; where to even start. Luckily the great Mr. Hitchens came to the rescue. There's still gold in them thar hills: Guernica
"Anybody visiting the Middle East in the last decade has had the experience: meeting the hoarse and aggressive person who first denies that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for the destruction of the
and then proceeds to describe the attack as a justified vengeance for decades of American imperialism. This cognitive dissonance—to give it a polite designation—does not always take that precise form. Sometimes the same person who hails the bravery of al-Qaida's martyrs also believes that the Jews planned the "operation." As far as I know, only leading British "Truther" David Shayler, a former intelligence agent who also announced his own divinity, has denied that the events of Sept. 11, 2001, took place at all. (It was apparently by means of a hologram that the widespread delusion was created on television.) World Trade Center
"In his recent article for Guernica magazine, however, professor Noam Chomsky decides to leave that central question open. We have no more reason to credit Osama Bin Laden's claim of responsibility, he states, than we would have to believe Chomsky's own claim to have won the Boston Marathon."
Read the rest here.
What's the main difference between these two? Chomsky with all his book-learning has only ever propounded one idea -- American imperialism is responsible for all the world's woes, whereas Hitchens' erudition encompasses so many as to boggle the mind. As Hitchen's says, "This is the sum total of what has been learned, by the guru of the left, in the last decade."