From: "Ed Herman" <hermane at wharton.upenn.edu> Subject: Re: Herman on Hitchens Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 20:07:43 -0500
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
> >>
> >>
>
>
> --
>