pretty persumptious, don't you think?
On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 09:30:24PM -0500, Andrew Hagen wrote:
> Noam Chomsky's position on the attack of September 11 was carried by
> B92, and reprinted in Counterpunch.
>
> http://www.counterpunch.org/chomskyintv.html
>
> The initial question and its answer are striking. Chomsky is asked,
> "Why do you think these attacks happened?" In response, he engages in a
> long, predictable diatribe against US foreign policy. Bin Laden was a
> creature of the CIA, etc, etc.
>
> Chomsky's analysis is non-responsive, fallacious, and contentious. I
> call for Chomsky to apologize to the families of the victims. Below are
> the reasons.
>
> Chomsky's analysis is non-responsive. Chomsky never answers the
> question of why the attacks happened. He only speaks about the
> injustice that the US has perpetrated upon the world. Not explicitly,
> but by implication Chomsky sends the message that "we" deserved it.
>
> The meaning of "we" is unclear. It could mean the body politic of the
> United States. It could mean the people who actually died, many of whom
> were not political decision makers. For example, did the 300 fire
> fighters deserve to die because they were too uncritical of US foreign
> policy?
>
> Chomsky does not answer the question of why the attack happened. He
> only asserts that Muslims resent the United States. Yet, resentment
> does not generally lead to such atrocities.
>
> Why is there evil in the world? Let us leave that question to the
> philosophers and theologians. To answer the question that Chomsky
> leaves open, it happened because someone conceived of unleashing an
> attack of grand magnitude against the United States, and then put that
> idea into effect. In failing to address the question as put, Chomsky's
> analysis is non-responsive.
>
> It would behoove the Left to develop the reputation that its
> commentators answer questions in a straightforward manner. Chomsky's
> analysis is of no help in this regard.
>
> Chomsky's analysis is also fallacious. The attacks were well
> coordinated, meticulously planned, and executed by agents who had to
> have received extensive training. Four airplanes were successfully
> hijacked, and no airplanes were targets of unsuccessful hijack
> attempts. The hijackers carried nothing more than short knives and
> boxcutters (comparable to x-acto knives). They made some bomb threats.
> The audacity of the attacks indicates either total idiocy on the part
> of the hijackers backed by the best luck imaginable, or extreme
> confidence backed by a masterful plan that was rehearsed over and over.
> As an inference drawn from several media reports, there is a real
> possibility that all of the hijackers were using stolen identification
> documents. All of these facts point toward a military operation,
> paramilitary operation, or "black ops" operation.
>
> Chomsky states that the attack occurred because America is resented.
> For the sake of argument, I grant that America is resented by the
> entire Muslim world. Nevertheless, it is a plain fact that the attack
> has NOT met with popular approval anywhere in the world, and no
> sustained popular approval in the Muslim world. While there were a few
> brief celebrations in the wake of the attacks in Palestine and
> elsewhere, those celebrations have subsided now that the truly horrific
> scope of the atrocity has become well known. From a population that
> resents us, it is striking how little approval the attacks have
> received.
>
> While many may resent America, the attack came from a relative few who
> did not ask for and have not received popular support for their action.
> Many Muslims resent America, but none except for a very few of the
> Osama Bin Laden ilk have publicly supported the attack. Thus, even
> widespread resentment of America by Muslims could not have generated
> these attacks. These attacks could only have been generated by a
> relatively small group of dedicated people who see resentment, and
> hence hatred, as tools to be sharpened, not as necessary preconditions
> for a successful attack.
>
> It is a sad commentary on the state of what passes for intellectualism
> on the Left today that the best that such a leading commentator can do
> is parrot the mass media in searching for a reason "why they hate us,"
> restated as why they "resent" us. Popular resentment or hatred is mere
> background to this picture.
>
> Perhaps Chomsky would argue that the United States is so highly
> resented that an attack of this nature was inevitable. Maybe there is
> some cosmic justice in the sometimes menacing (Mossadegh, Allende) and
> often blundering superpower (Somalia pharmaceutical plant, Iranian
> airliner) finally getting a taste of what it dishes out.
>
> Does Chomsky propose that there is some cosmic justice at work here? He
> often mentions the "cycle of violence." Is this a spiritual force that
> is wreaking a terrible justice on America? Perhaps this is Chomsky's
> belief, but it is unsupported, and I do not share it.
>
> In a response to a later question, Chomsky suggests that the US is
> pressuring Pakistan to reduce humanitarian aid to the suffering people
> of Afghanistan. Even if true, that point breezes over the hard fact
> that the US is itself the provider of a significant proportion of
> humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan. This flawed statement of
> Chomsky's is illustrative of my larger point.
>
> Chomsky's analysis is unsupported. To the extent he begins to answer
> the question posed, his reply is riddled with fallacies.
>
> So far, I have argued that Chomsky's analysis is both non-responsive
> and fallacious.
>
> Chomsky's response is also contentious. In failing to answer the simple
> question of why, and engaging in a reckless crusade of fallacies,
> Chomsky effectively blames the United States for the attack that befell
> its people. I would ordinarily understand such criticism. The foreign
> policy of the US is highly flawed and often immoral. Perhaps if
> American foreign policy were better considered, this would not have
> happened.
>
> Chomsky has gone so far as to justify the attack, however. The attack
> occurred because the Muslims are concerned that the United States has
> been, among other things,
>
> " 'propping up oppressive regimes.' Among the great majority of people
> suffering deep poverty and oppression, similar sentiments are far more
> bitter, and are the source of the fury and despair that has led to
> suicide bombings, as commonly understood by those who are interested in
> the facts." (quoting Chomsky's analysis)
>
> I stand in solidarity with all the oppressed people of the world.
> Merely because one is oppressed, however, does not justify any action
> in support of liberation. For Chomsky, though, it is apparently all
> relative. Whatever seems expedient to throw off the yoke of the
> oppressors, including any manner of atrocity, is understandable to
> Chomsky.
>
> Chomsky is not disturbed that suicide bombings are known to be
> generated by fury and despair. He still understands them. If enough
> emotional content is put into an action, is it inherently justified?
> No. Instead, we should insist on rationally considering the ethics of
> conduct. I stand for rational judgment, not the unwarranted pity
> Chomsky holds out as a prop. Liberation tactics must be ethical or they
> must be condemned.
>
> It is contentious to justify these attacks as generated by resentment,
> when all the evidence points toward a lack of any popular approval.
> While I stand with Chomsky in his criticism of oppression supported by
> the US government over the years, the September 11th suicide attacks
> are beyond the pale of humanity. Whoever is responsible is a criminal
> of the first rank, both under the laws of the United States and under
> international law. There is no justification for the attacks
> whatsoever.
>
> For Chomsky to suggest that this attack was somehow connected with a
> liberation movement is entirely irresponsible and invites his
> considerable audience into an irrational support of evil. I have argued
> that Chomsky's analysis is non-responsive and fallacious. For the above
> reasons, Chomsky's analysis is also contentious.
>
> When the Left's leading voice resorts to such knee jerk reactions, it
> is a sad day indeed. Chomsky's thinking is appalling, deplorable, and
> symptomatic of an American left wing that is long overdue for an
> overhaul. As an American member of the political Left, I call for
> Chomsky to reconsider his remarks, and apologize to the families of the
> victims for the sentiments he has expressed.
>
> Andrew Hagen
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
