Herman responds to berlet

[Mark Pavlick]

>
>
>Dear Chip Berlet:
>
>   Chip, your remarks on my critique show that you are a true master of the
>non-sequitur. I notice also that you sneer at Louis Proyect's views even
>before you have seen them, which does not speak for a very open mind.
>
>    Let me comment on each of your snippets-sneers below.
>
>Ed Herman >
>>
>>  >Status:  U
>>  >From: "Chip Berlet" <cberlet at igc.org>
>>  >To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>>  >Subject: RE: Herman on Hitchens
>>  >Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 17:27:11 -0500
>>  >X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>>  >Importance: Normal
>>  >Sender: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>>  >Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>>  >
>>  >Sloppy Logic / Slurpy Argument Alert # 666
>>  >
>>  >Once more for the thrill of it:
>>  >
>>  >Just because Hitchens abuses the term fascist does not refute its
>accuracy
>>  >in terms of the Taliban or Al Qaeda.
>>  >
>--REPLY: No it doesn't, that remains an open question for discussion, but
>the inference that anybody suggested that his abuse refutes the claim is a
>simple logical non-sequitur.
>
>>  >Just because Hitchens uses the fascist to promote the US war does not
>mean
>>  >all those who call the Taliban and Al Qaeda fascist support the US war.
>
>>  >REPLY: Nobody says it does, so you have another pure non-sequitur to your
>account.
>
>>  >Just because Clinton was "getting" the Serb fascists through NATO and
>>  >criminal bombing raids, does not refute that some of the Serb leadership
>>  >were fascists.
>
>>  >REPLY:  Again a straightforward non-sequitur, although the empirical
>question is debatable and I am sure we would disagree on this. But did you
>ever read Susan Woodward's book Balkan Tragedy, or the books by Lenard
>Cohen, or Steven Burg and Paul Shoup, or the writings of Robert Hayden and
>David Chandler, or did you rely on the NYT and David Rieff and company?
>
>>  >Just because some of us called the Serbian thugs "fascists" did not mean
>we
>>  >supported the NATO/US bombing.
>
>>  >REPLY: You are batting 4 for 4 in non-sequiturs, although whether your
>designation of the Serbian thugs as fascists is an empirical and
>definitional question.
>
>>  >Just because the NATO attacks and the bombing were wrong, does not mean
>that
>>  >we should be apologists for Serbian Orthodox fascism, (or Croat Catholic
>>  >fascism or Kosovar Islamic fascism).
>
>>  >REPLY:  Another non-sequitur, as I  never implied that we should be
>apologists. There is however the question of what makes one an
>"apologist"--if I denounce the sanctions of mass destruction imposed on
>Iraq, am I an apologist if  I don't also immediately say that  Saddam
>Hussein is  a nasty dictator?  If you denounce  some domestic fascists in
>the United States who have just been arrested for  a racist murder, are you
>an apologist for the U.S. government if you don't point out its oftentimes
>criminal failings and historic collusion with racist violence?
>
>  > >Just because the US attack on and bombing of Afghanistan were wrong, does
>  > >not mean that we should be apologists for Islamic forms of fascism.
>
>>  >REPLY:  Still batting a thousand as a master of the non-sequitur.
>
>>  >I find it sad for the left that Herman has to become an apologist for
>ethnic
>>  >fascists in order to criticize US imperialism.
>
>>  >REPLY:  You are a damned liar to suggest that I have become such an
>apologist; I think the Bin Laden operation is monstrous and the Taliban a
>really vicious and sick government. Nothing I have said and nothing that you
>cite contradicts this.  As I  have been pointing out for each of your
>remarks, your logical powers are weak, and your supposition that if I
>criticize an imperial attack and question somebody's particular designation
>of  the Taliban and Bin Laden as inaccurate this makes me an apologist is a
>nasty bit of illogic. During the Vietnam war many of us who assailed the US
>attack were regularly chided by people who insisted that we equally denounce
>the NLF and government of North Vietnam, and if we didn't do this regularly
>to provide "balance," we were apologists. You are an heir of that great
>tradition.
>
>>  >How about NO to both imperialism and fascism...is that too much to ask?
>
>>  >REPLY: What a broad-minded fellow you are. The rest of us can't follow in
>such big footsteps.
>
>>  >-Chip Berlet
>>  >
>>  >p.s. anyone have Louis Proyect's note, I can hardly wait.
>>  >
>     REPLY: I wouldn't bother to read it Chip--you know all the answers
>beforehand, definitively.
>>  >
>>  >==========================
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >>  Subject: Herman on Hitchens
>>  >
>>  >>  > Bush is attacking the
>>  >>  >"Islamic fascists," just as Clinton was getting the "Serb
>>  >>  >fascists," and that is all that counts for the new Hitchens.
>>  >
>>  ><<SNIP>>
>>  >
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  >    The idea that the Taliban is a fascist and expansionist threat,
>>  >>  >and that Islamic fundamentalism more broadly speaking is the same,
>>  >>  >doesn't hold water (Louis Proyect's note to you deals with this
>>  >>  >quite well). Hitchens has come to use "fascist" as an epithet to
>>  >>  >apply to any enemy of the moment.
>>  >
>>  ><<SNIP>>
>>  >
>>  >>
>>  >>  >                          Sincerely,
>>  >>  >                          Ed Herman
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>
>>
>>  --
>>

--