• Noam Chomsky, shameless and despicable defender of terrorists

    Ex-muslims living in western world have on occasion voiced their frustration with leftists in their countries of residence who, through their zeal to come across as defending the “rule of law” and “tolerance”, have come to give murderous Islamists the victim status. In the US, there is probably no example of this more repugnant than the smug Noam Chomsky.

    Chomsky has a good deal of following on the political left, even though, due to his extreme positions, few politicians would come to openly identify with him. But the fact that his views rarely form the basis of public policy, according to Chomsky himself, is due to “democratic deficit”: IF ONLY the will of the people were taken into consideration by politicians, I guess, then we’d all be living in the Chomsky-stan.

    When it comes to New Atheists, Chomsky, who describes himself as an atheist, is not impressed. He goes so far as to call us “religious fanatics”-the old canard of calling atheism a “religion”.

    Interestingly, Chomsky, who claims to have the public opinion on his side, had this to say about the killing of Osama Bin Laden:

    In April 2002, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the FBI could say no more than that it “believed” that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, though implemented in the UAE and Germany. What they only believed in April 2002, they obviously didn’t know 8 months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know, because they were instantly dismissed) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence—which, as we soon learned, Washington didn’t have.

    Thus Chomsky isn’t convinced Bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11. How about Bin Laden’s confession?

    Nothing serious has been provided since. There is much talk of bin Laden’s “confession,” but that is rather like my confession that I won the Boston Marathon. He boasted of what he regarded as a great achievement.

    Dismissing a confession so light-heartedly…interesting. Well in case Chomsky missed it, winning a marathon is not a crime, and boasting about a crime is considered admissible evidence legally. Anyways, Bin Laden himself had this to say about 9/11:

    You, the American people, I talk to you today about the best way to avoid another catastrophe and about war, its reasons and its consequences.

    And in that regard, I say to you that security is an important pillar of human life, and that free people do not compromise their security.

    Contrary to what [President George W.] Bush says and claims — that we hate freedom –let him tell us then, “Why did we not attack Sweden?” It is known that those who hate freedom don’t have souls with integrity, like the souls of those 19. May the mercy of God be upon them.

    Claiming responsibility through the rhetorical question “why we did not attack Sweden” and threatening more…well not that Chomsky would be convinced anyway. Interestingly, while Chomsky is unsure about Bin Laden’s guilt, he doesn’t name any other suspect. How is this to be interpreted? Is Chomsky toying with 9/11 “truth” conspiracy theories? The nutjobs of “truth movement” are about the only ones having questioned Al Qaeda’s involvement in 9/11, aside from Chomsky himself.

    In the end, what is most glaring is Chomsky’s hypocrisy, in complaining about a “democratic deficit”, while in a complete representative democracy, Chomsky, the Bin Laden defender, could not get elected dog catcher.

    Public jubilation at death of Bin Laden

    Category: Uncategorized

    Article by: No Such Thing As Blasphemy

    I was raised in the Islamic world. By accident of history, the plague that is entanglement of religion and government affects most Muslim majority nations a lot worse the many Christian majority (or post-Christian majority) nations. Hence, I am quite familiar with this plague. I started doubting the faith I was raised in during my teen years. After becoming familiar with the works of enlightenment philosophers, I identified myself as a deist. But it was not until a long time later, after I learned about evolutionary science, that I came to identify myself as an atheist. And only then, I came to know the religious right in the US. No need to say, that made me much more passionate about what I believe in and what I stand for. Read more...
    • Peter A

      This article gave me cancer. Your speculation is so full of crap.

      Parroting Christopher Hitchens doesn’t an article make.

      • NoCrossNoCrescent

        Lol. Thanks for the laughs. Come back when you have anything more than ad hominems and personal attacks.

        • It is self-evidently crap, and I’ll write up a few reasons for you. However, I will say here Chomsky’s confession point is extremely lame.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            comment is self evidently crap? Ok, we can agree on that.

    • “due to his extreme positions, few politicians would come to openly identify with him” This is a clear argument from popularity fallacy. That Chomsky’s positions are extreme when compared to elected politicians is entirely to his credit.

      Your “democratic deficit” link is to the wrong content.

      Chomsky’s point isn’t that atheism is a religion like the apologist canard. That is trotted out to try to bring naturalism down into a “worldview” – a presupposition about the world that is equally arbitrary as supposing miracles can happen. Chomsky is referring to the ideology of Harris and Hitchens. They worship the state, in this case enabling US actions around the world.

      “Thus Chomsky isn’t convinced Bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11.” No, no, no. Do I really have to explain this to you?

      The last paragraph is awful. I’ll have to get to a keyboard to address it there is so much wrong with it.

      • NoCrossNoCrescent

        Yeah right. Because the whole public is behind Chomsky condemning the killing of bin Laden?
        To say that disagreeing with politicians is to Chomsky ‘s credit is really stupid. I am no fan of politicians, but I people in an insane asylum may disagree with politcians and that gives them no credit. And grow up-there is no fallacy here. Chomsky himself opens the door to this objection by claiming his views are so popular,no elected politician supports them. What a hypocrite.
        And Harris and Hitchens “worship the state”? Gosh, so anyone who doesn’t think the state is 100%a wrong is worshipping it? You sound like a teabagger.

        • Chomsky said this a couple of days after Osama’s killing: “It’s increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law. There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition—except, they claim, from his wife, who lunged towards them. In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial.” Do you have any arguments with this?

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Yes. Maybe Chomsky likes to see mass murderers brought to trial while even their own open confessions are inadmissible. He lives in a parallel world in which his hatred for US government eclipses even the most elementary respect for the rights of thousands of Bin Laden’s victims.

        • The difference being that Chomsky’s arguments are sound, while insane people’s are generally insane. I’d be happy to engage with you over Chomsky’s arguments if you want. Start with a link or quote and we’ll go.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            No politicians (even racist ones) openly identify with KKK. So that means KKK are all good, right?

        • I have no idea what you mean with “Chomsky himself opens the door to this objection by claiming his views are so popular,no elected politician supports them.” or with the sentences around the now-corrected “democratic deficits” link in the original post.

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Hey congratulations! You won an entire post, dedicated to deconstructing your fallacies!

            You are welcome to respond, as long as you do not leave more than one comment a day.

            • Oh, goodie! I’ll have to rest up for my reply. Or can I squeeze one in for Thursday and still get my one post per day for Friday?

        • Gosh, you didn’t take one phrase of my argument, about worshiping the state, in the worst possible light, and ignore the rest, did you? When you have anything else to say, let me know.

    • “In the end, what is most glaring is Chomsky’s hypocrisy, in complaining about a ‘democratic deficit’, while in a complete representative democracy, Chomsky, the Bin Laden defender, could not get elected dog catcher.”

      First, this “democratic deficit” quote. It appears in the last paragraph of the first answer here: http://mondediplo.com/2007/08/02democracy. After starting in general and citing some examples, the last paragraph is:

      On all these topics, White House policy is completely at odds with what public opinion wants. But the media rarely publish the polls that highlight this persistent public opposition. Not only are citizens excluded from political power, they are also kept in a state of ignorance as to the true state of public opinion. There is growing international concern about the massive US double deficit affecting trade and the budget. But both are closely linked to a third deficit, the democratic deficit that is constantly growing, not only in the US but all over the western world.

      Please tell me what you disagree with any part of the first answer in the link.

      • NoCrossNoCrescent

        If Chomsky thinks he himself represents public opinion better than any other politician he can run for office. We’ll all have a great comedy to watch as his words condemning the killing of Bin Laden are plasters all over TV screens and front pages and his opponent hammers him with quotes dragging the US through mud and glorifying our enemies.
        Incidentally. Since you have been too obsessive a troll, you’ll get blocked for now. In the future you’ll be allowed to leave one comment a day, but if you exceed that you’ll be blocked permanently.