Chomsky takes down Hitchens

[Luke Weiger]

> Well, of course the Sudan bombing was intentional. That wasn't a stray
> cruise missile that hit the factory. The question is whether the Clinton
> gang knew it was a pharmaceutical plant or not. They certainly knew what
it
> was AFTER the fact, and they lied about their intentions to cover up what
> was an act of terrorism. Chomsky's point is that the US has blocked the UN
> from going in to assess the numbers of those who've died and continue to
die
> as a result, which he estimates is easily in the thousands, if not tens of
> thousands. That no one really cares what the numbers are, and that people
> like Hitchens take offense with the mere question in relation to WTC, this
> is what Chomsky finds immoral and racist. And I agree with him.
>
> DP

The "intent" in question isn't whether the "Clinton gang" wanted to bomb
some target but rather whether they had any interest in destroying a
pharmaceutical plant.  That seems doubtful to me.  Even as a
consequentialist, I have a problem with Chomsky assigning moral
responsibility on the basis of all the often unforeseeable consequences of
an act as opposed to the original calculation of expected utility.

So, as Noam A stated, the true failure was less the bombing itself than the
failure of the US to rectify the damage done.  As Noam A also pointed out,
this is a failure the rest of the first world was also quite capable of
compensating for.

-- Luke