On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, Noam A wrote:
> Perhaps this point has been made before, either on this list or somewhere
> else. But either way, it's an important one.
>
> The problem is not that there wasn't a greater crime committed in Sudan than
> in New York. It's that Chomsky is focussing the readers' attention to the
> actual BOMBING of the plant, rather than the failure to compensate for the
> loss of pharmaceuticals that resulted from it.
>
> This is effective rhetorically, because Bombings are so much more dramatic.
> But it was the failure of the US and the rest of the first world (who I
> wouldn't excuse from guilt) to compensate for the damage that caused the
> deaths. Unless of course the bombing was intentional.
>
> And this is the implication that Chomsky wouldn't go out and say: that the
> U.S. INTENTIONALLY hit that plant. He's uncomfortable saying it, but not
> uncomfortable in stirring up the thought of it in the minds of more radical
> readers of his.
>
> That is a profoundly dishonest tactic that I've noticed in Chomsky's
> writing, on and off, for years. It is hardly unique to him among widely read
> left writers, though he is among the more crafty at it.
>
>