Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas M. who wrote (8734)	11/3/2001 11:17:44 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Chomsky's original quote: Tom, Thanks for the quote and the link to the full text of Chomsky's response to Hitchens. I assume the Chomsky response is to the Hitchens article in The Nation. If so, I've read that also. I have no way to check Chomsky's factual assertions in this response; nor, for that matter, Hitchens' own facts in his article in The Nation. So I won't go there. However, I do have a couple of thoughts, for what they are worth. 1. Chomsky's point that any attempt to come to terms with the bombing of civilians needs to count not only the victims at the bombing site but also the consequences, in this case, patients in need of the drugs. Given Chomsky's known tendency to exaggerate, I would guess the numbers he advances are too large, but the structure of the argument sounds about right. Do you disagree? 2. Chomsky's reply to Hitchens raises the point of intentions. If one compares 9-11 to the Sudan bombing, it's clear that the first intended the harm it inflicted, the second did not, at least not on civilians. It was a mistake so admitted by everyone involved. Moreover, Chomsky notes that he has not argued that the Clinton folk did the bombing to obscure the Lewinsky business; but Hitchens is certain that's the reason it occured. I have to agree with Chomsky on this point; it's simply not possible to know, though given the numbers of actors involved and their worries that precisely those motives would be attributed to them, I doubt that was even a peripheral reason. As for Clinton himself, who knows. John

To: Thomas M. who wrote (8734)	11/3/2001 1:46:46 PM
From: LLLefty	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Chomsky's original quote: "The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale they may not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton's bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and causing the deaths of unknown numbers of people (no one knows, because the US blocked an inquiry at the UN and no one cares to pursue it)." l. The bombing of the pharma plant in Khartoum killed exactly one night watchman. 2. The bombing may have caused the death of hundreds of thousands for lack of drugs, thus it was far worse than only 5000 dead at the WTC. Some 2,000,000 southern Sudanese, mostly black Christians and animists, have been massacred, bombed, starved and enslaved by the sharia-loving Khartoum regime. Yes, Sudan still practices slavery; southerners, many of them young girls, are captured and taken north. 3. In recent years, Sudan has become a serious oil producer, providing a flood of wealth to Khartoum which is a partner with Chinese, Malaysian and Canadian interests. The revenue goes primarily to purchase weaponry to crush the southern rebels. One might say that it could have used some of that considerable wealth to purchase drugs from abroad. While there is an American embargo on trade with Sudan, there are any number of countries which would have been most willing to supply Sudan, i. e. India with its growing generic industry. 3. The only food and medical supplies for the malnourished and drought-ridden south come from well-intentioned Operation Lifeline, a 12-year-old program run by a consortium of NGOs, UNICEF and WFP. With regularity, Sudan impedes its activities. 4. Sandy Berger maintains earth samples from outside the plant showed evidence of a chemical used in the making of nerve gas. It may not have been the smoking gun but by way of backround, Sudan has been a long-time base for terrorist training; an American Ambassdor was murdered there by PLO terrorists whom Sudan allowed to go free and there was a strong belief, apparently wrong, that bin Ladin was a partner in the plant. 5.Sudan is not a signator to the chemical weapons treaty. So why should the US bring its case to the UN, and which recently played host to the farcial Durban Conference on race and other ills. How about the UN Human Rights Commission, which, if I remember right, Sudan (or another of its ilk) just became a member. 6. What drugs did the pharma factory make? I haven't seen any information other than one report that it manufactured aspirin, not exactly a life-saving drug unless the Sudanese public enjoys such elevated health care that they take a half-pill regularily against heart attack. 7. Yet our fatuous Dr. Chomsky, who seems to know as much about Sudan as Donald Duck, suggests that the destruction of half a pharma plant and a single death may have been a greater atrocity than the bombing of the WTC. 8. The most pathetic fallout yet is the duel of two celebrated egos, Chomsky and Hitchens, for the enjoyment of their coterie of followers inside the Beltway and academia (who just love checking footnotes). Neither C nor H gives a shit about the tragedy of Sudan's raped, robbed, slaughtered, massacred enslaved black Southerners.

To: Thomas M. who wrote (8734)	11/5/2001 1:39:56 AM
From: Selectric II	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hmm. Then why does Chomsky's "equation" seem to count only the "costs" and effects on those who the U.S. has bombed (Sudan, and all those supposedly affected), but not the "costs" and effects on the entire U.S. and the rest of the world when the U.S. was attacked? In fact, it's likely that millions will die all over the world due to the economic fallout from the 9.11 attacks. Too bad Chomsky's fixated mind only adds up one side of the equation. Seems utterly irresponsible and dishonest, particularly for a professor from MIT, who ought to know better. Even more astonishing is that our revered universities hire and maintain faculty that seem to be little more than nut cases with flamboyance, attracting a circus-like following.

To: Thomas M. who wrote (8734)	11/5/2001 1:46:27 AM
From: Selectric II	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

In scale they may not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton's bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and causing the deaths of unknown numbers of people (no one knows, because the US blocked an inquiry at the UN and no one cares to pursue it)." "Unknown numbers of people"? I'm sure Sudan could have, or did give some number. Does Chomsky contend it was 5,000, given his admission that it is unknown? "No one knows, because the US blocked an inquiry at the UN..." Since when does the UN have sovereignty over Sudan? Did the UN go into Sudan and prevent them from giving a number? "No one cares to pursue it." Chomsky does. Did he ask the Sudan? What a farce. And this is from an "academic"????