Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Corporate Whore Christopher Hitchens blathers propaganda


By Luke Broadwater syas

Now, that's how you write a column: Christopher Hitchens lights up Noam Chomsky (Slate)

http://www.ihavenothing.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/wikileaks-78114006.jpg
all these people are dead, seconds after this frame

LIGHT UP is what the Apache Helicopter pilot (CIA Drone operator)  said before he mamed and killed some unidentified
people (civilians) in Iraq, Afghanistan (or Yemen)

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2010/04/340x_7c99d3be181ae2c3f4.jpg
these children are killed by US helicopter named "Apache" (Like Nazis naming their aircraft "Jew" or "Gypsy")


Here now is
Christopher Eric Hitchens (born 13 April 1949) is an English-American author.

Chomsky's Follies

The professor's pronouncements about Osama Bin Laden are stupid and ignorant.


http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/Pictures/2010/8/26/1282841154341/Christopher-Hitchens-006.jpg
By Christopher Hitchens   Posted Monday, May 9, 2011, at 2:36 PM ET

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 World Trade Center

(which is true!)


and then proceeds to describe the attack as a justified vengeance for decades
of American imperialism.

(not many do that. But many US Americans describe the killing of 'arabs' as 
vengeance for 9/11)


This cognitive dissonance —

(Hitchen's knows the word to describe his own condition.  Believing that 911
was done by arabs while at the same time ALL THE EVIDENCE points to a huge
9/11 COVER-UP by the USA. And WHO BENEFITS?   US-people pay a huge price for
the US military corrupt complex, and USA has all the air-bases it likes.
Arabs have nothing, except cruel US-supported dictators.)


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."

(Vilify those who are not of your opinion, Christopher. Show you have no arguments)


As far as I know, only leading British "Truther" David Shayler,

(He is not the only one. There are thousands.  Try ANNIE MACHON)

a former intelligence agent who also announced his own divinity,

(He went crazy, yes. Who knows what drugs he was given)

has denied that the events of Sept. 11, 2001, took place at all.

(He did not, he was VERY clear about them being in inside job)

It was apparently by means of a hologram that the widespread delusion
was created on television.

(Imagine that. Secret US military technology at work to fool people!)


In his recent article for Guernica magazine, however, professor Noam Chomsky
decides to leave that central question open.

(YES!!  Chomsky is finally touching on the subject. Chomsky is all about facts)


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.

(Correct.  Since the FBI has officially said they do not suspect Bin Laden
being responsible for 911, and Bin Laden himself having denied involvement at first,
the FACT-BASED community can only assume that the fake/mistranslated OSAMA VIDEOS
are what they are. A phantasy. Bravo Chomsky!)


I can't immediately decide whether or not this is an improvement on
what Chomsky wrote at the time. Ten years ago,
apparently sharing the consensus that 9/11 was indeed
the work of al-Qaida, he wrote that it was no worse an atrocity
than President Clinton's earlier use of cruise missiles
against Sudan in retaliation for the bomb attacks on the
centers of Nairobi and Dar es Salaam.
(I haven't been back to check on whether he conceded that
those embassy bombings were also al-Qaida's work to begin with.)
He is still arguing loudly for moral equivalence,
maintaining that the Abbottabad, Pakistan, strike would
justify a contingency whereby
"Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush's compound,
assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic."
(Indeed, equivalence might be a weak word here, since
he maintains that, "uncontroversially, [Bush's]
crimes vastly exceed bin Laden's.")


(Christopher...  your point being???)



So the main new element is the one of intriguing mystery.
The Twin Towers came down, but it's still anyone's guess who did it.
Since "April 2002, [when] 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," no evidence has been adduced.
"Nothing serious," as Chomsky puts it, "has been provided since."


(Christopher...  your point being???)


Chomsky still enjoys some reputation both as a scholar and a public intellectual. And in the face of bombardments of official propaganda, he prides himself in a signature phrase on his stern insistence on "turning to the facts." So is one to assume that he has pored through the completed findings of the 9/11 Commission?


(Have you?  Osama and the 40 robbers fairy tale. WTC7 is not even mentioned)

 Viewed any of the videos in which the 9/11 hijackers are seen in the company of Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri?

(Haha, there are no such videos. Christopher, you are an idiot!)

Read the transcripts of the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called "20th hijacker"?

(He is a crazy, french "useful idiot")

Followed the journalistic investigations of Lawrence Wright, Peter Bergen, or John Burns, to name only some of the more salient? Acquainted himself with the proceedings of associated and ancillary investigations into the bombing of the USS Cole or indeed the first attempt to bring down the Twin Towers in the 1990s?

(Yes, in 1993 an FBI agent provided the explosives and recorded his conversations with the FBI for self-insurance!!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emad_Salem

With the paranoid anti-war "left," you never quite know where the emphasis is going to fall next. At the Telluride Film Festival in 2002, I found myself debating Michael Moore, who, a whole year after the attacks, maintained that Bin Laden was "innocent until proved guilty" (and hadn't been proven guilty). Except that he had,

(Where?  PROOF, not hearsay)


at least according to Moore one day after the attacks, when he wrote that: "WE created the monster known as Osama bin Laden! Where did he go to terrorist school? At the CIA!" So, innocent unless tainted by association with Langley, Va., which did seem to have some heartland flying schools under surveillance before 2001 but which seemed sluggish on the uptake regarding them. For quite some time, in fact, the whole anti-Bush "narrative" involved something rather like collusion with the evil Bin Laden crime family, possibly based on mutual interests in the oil industry. So guilty was Bin Laden, in fact, that he was allowed to prepare for a new Pearl Harbor on American soil by a spineless Republican administration that had ignored daily briefings on the mounting threat. Gore Vidal was able to utter many croaking and suggestive lines to this effect, hinting at a high-level betrayal of the republic.

And then came those who, impatient with mere innuendo, directly accused the administration of rocketing its own Pentagon and bringing about a "controlled demolition" of the World Trade Center. This grand scenario seemed to have a few loose planes left over, since the ones that hit the towers were only a grace note to the more ruthless pre-existing sabotage and the ones in Virginia and Pennsylvania, complete with passengers and crews and hijackers, somehow just went missing.

Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

It's no criticism of Chomsky to say that his analysis is inconsistent with that of other individuals and factions who essentially think that 9/11 was a hoax. However, it is remarkable that he should write as if the mass of evidence against Bin Laden has never been presented

Christopher!!  Reality Check!!  IT HASN'T !!

 or could not have been brought before a court. This form of 9/11 denial doesn't trouble to conceal an unstated but self-evident premise, which is that the United States richly deserved the assault on its citizens and its civil society. After all, as Chomsky phrases it so tellingly, our habit of "naming our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Tomahawk … [is] as if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes 'Jew' and 'Gypsy.' " Perhaps this is not so true in the case of Tomahawk, which actually is the name of a weapon, but the point is at least as good as any other he makes.

In short, we do not know who organized the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, or any other related assaults, though it would be a credulous fool who swallowed the (unsupported) word of Osama Bin Laden that his group was the one responsible. An attempt to kidnap or murder an ex-president of the United States (and presumably, by extension, the sitting one) would be as legally justified as the hit on Abbottabad. And America is an incarnation of the Third Reich that doesn't even conceal its genocidal methods and aspirations. This is the sum total of what has been learned, by the guru of the left, in the last decade.

Christopher, your misrepresentation are so poor.  We feel sorry for you, you lost it.  Sold out. Wanker.


StumbleUpon PLEASE give it a thumbs up Stumble It!
Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at 9:41 AM

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home