September 11, 2003


On Monday the Sydney Morning Herald ran Naomi Klein. Today -- September 11 -- itís got Noam Chomsky.

Must be pursuing that massive Green Left Weekly/Indymedia demographic. Or perhaps Fairfax boss Fred Hilmer has worked out that he'll save distribution costs if nobody wants to read his paper.

Posted by Tim Blair at September 11, 2003 04:02 AM

Why'd you have to go a link that stalinist Chomsky? With morbid curiosity, I clicked on it... and it opens with

"America's violent response to September 11 has only served to heighten the risk of further terrorist attacks, says Noam Chomsky."

Now I want to go terrorize Noam...or at least key his Benz. MF%&#&#&er

Posted by: LB at September 11, 2003 at 07:42 AM

I'm not exactly sure what Chomsky's point is?

Posted by: Jonny at September 11, 2003 at 08:42 AM

Chomsky says "The National Security Strategy declared that the US - alone - has the right to carry out "preventive war": preventive, not
pre-emptive, using military force to eliminate a perceived threat, even if invented or imagined. Preventive war is simply the "supreme crime" condemned at Nuremberg."

Hang on, didn't the crimes condemned at Nuremburg involve the extermination of over 10 million people? Or is Chomsky joining the ever growing plethora of left wing holocaust deniers?

Posted by: Jonny at September 11, 2003 at 08:51 AM

Chomsky's point is that he is a tosser.

But seriously, Mr C is really in the pay of the vast right wing conspiracy. The only people who believe in any of the rubbish he sprouts are the loony lefties who have no real influence. Most thinking people in the mainstream would think that he is a flaky flunky of the extremist left. He therby discredits the left and gives succour to the right.

Posted by: Toryhere at September 11, 2003 at 09:02 AM

"is Chomsky joining the ever growing plethora of left wing holocaust deniers?"

Jonny.... not many people seem to recall it (least of all the Sydney Morning Herald!) but back in the seventies, Chomsky WAS a holocaust denier...

Running Chomsky's stuff today would be a bit like giving a column to Tokyo Rose or William Joyce on December 7 1943.

Posted by: wilbur at September 11, 2003 at 10:02 AM

hehe, Chomsky is a funny name. Sounds like that dog food "chunky" or "chump" or something.

Posted by: Dan at September 11, 2003 at 10:22 AM

"Now I want to go terrorize Noam...or at least key his Benz."

A guy I know at MIT says St. Noam drives an Audi A4.

Posted by: Damian P. at September 11, 2003 at 10:33 AM

Chomsky's point is on the top of his head.

Posted by: Harry at September 11, 2003 at 10:40 AM

You know what I wonder whenever I read something Noam Chomsky has emitted? I wonder how you pronounce his name. Is it pronounced to rhyme with "foam," or is it pronounced like "Noah" with an "m" at the end, or is it pronounced "no am," as in someone from Bizarro World saying "No am sad when happy"?

I also wonder if he talks to his mother with that mouth.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at September 11, 2003 at 12:12 PM

naomi's haiku

noam, i moan
i am no noam
i am naomi

the end

Posted by: pooh at September 11, 2003 at 12:13 PM

Why is the Herald running a column by Noam Chomsky? This guy was an apologist for the Khmer Rouge long after it was clear that the bodies were
piling up. Hardly an objective voice of reason is his.

Will the Herald run David Irving next?

Posted by: Aaron at September 11, 2003 at 12:21 PM

No, I think it's John Pilger's turn next.

Posted by: pooh at September 11, 2003 at 12:28 PM

Noam Chomsky is a long-time apologist for Pol Pot & the Khmer Rouge. For many years Chomsky denied that millions of Cambodians died under the Khmer Rouge. Then he finally admitted it but argued that everything that the Khmer Rouge did, the forced marches into the countryside, etc., was a desperate & ingenious effort to keep the calamity from being even worse.

Why does the Syndey Morning Herald see fit to print the rantings of this Lovecraftian human-garbed maggot who denied the Holocaust & the Killing Fields & who persists as the ardent intellectual defender & champion of the Khmer Rouge?

Posted by: ForNow at September 11, 2003 at 12:29 PM

Why put up with the garbage served up by the Green Left Age SMH Village Idiot Voice when you can read Greg Sheridan in The Australian.

He also takes a stick to the ABC's biased coverage as well.


Posted by: ilibcc at September 11, 2003 at 01:57 PM

Commenters have ignored the most egregious quote in Chomsky's article:

"Those who accept elementary moral standards have some work to do to show that the US and Britain were justified in bombing Afghans to compel them to turn over people suspected of criminal atrocities, the official reason given when the bombings began."

There are so many things wrong with this sentence it's hard to know where to begin. But here's a list:

(1) It's that "elementary" adjective that's so annoying, for with one word he establishes himself as both morally and intellectually superior.

(2) Back in late 2001, Chomsky claimed we were perpetrating a "silent genocide" against Afghans, silent because the American government didn't want to reveal its true intentions. Now he states that America openly claimed to be deliberately targeting Afghan civilians. Chomsky can't even keep his atrocity accusations straight.

(3) But the accusation is bogus, anyway. Military operations in Afghanistan were not part of a "total war" policy of inflicting maximum suffering on a civilan population; they were part of an attempt to depose an odious government that most Afghans had grown to hate. We were not trying to compel innocent Afghans to do anything.

(4) He makes it sound as if al Qaida were some sort of Mafia criminal gang hiding out in Afghanistan, rather than a political group deeply intertwined with the Taliban. Al Qaeda arguably sponsored the Taliban more than the Taliban sponsored al Qaida.

(5) Al Qaida was merely "suspected" of criminal atrocities? Even before 9-11, was there any doubt that al Qaida had perpetrated other terrorist acts, including the African embassy bombings? Was there any doubt that they were planning other terrorist attacks?

(6) Destroying al Qaida was only "the official reason given" for deposing the Taliban? There was a more subversive reason? Puh-leeze. Afghanistan would never have been attacked if 9-11 hadn't happened. I half expected Chomsky to start talking about the American plot to build a pipeline across Afghanistan.

(7) The most basic elementary moral standard is doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. If a group of American religious fanatics had deliberately murdered thousands of Muslim innocents in Afghanistan, I would fully expect our government to extradict them. If our government refused to do so, I would fully expect America to be attacked by Muslim countries.

A mere mortal might have written that 9-11, horrible as it was, didn't justify endangering and accidentally killing any Afghan civilians at all. But such a statement would have been too straight-forward for Saint Noam.

Posted by: Peter Caress at September 11, 2003 at 04:32 PM

I wonder how you pronounce his name.


Come on, don't tell me that man gets laid.

Posted by: ilyka at September 12, 2003 at 05:43 AM

Peter Caress, thanks for pointing that all out. Chomsky is such a trial to oneís patience to read through.

Noam Chomsky is an evil-minded man. The seriousness with which he is taken by the left is a measure of what a Twilight Zone alternate reality we have drifted into. No, we didnít wake up one morning & see people including some friends & acquaintances walking with swastika armbands in the streets. But something is that kind of wrong when a Pol Pot apologist like Chomsky is published in mainstream newspapers, likewise his apostles such as Andrew Gumbel, & every campus has many who follow or respect Chomsky on politics.

Posted by: ForNow at September 12, 2003 at 11:08 AM

Do my eyes deceive me or does the SMH have the same text twice in today's article
"Blair was warned Iraq war would raise terror risk"?

Posted by: Keith McLennan at September 12, 2003 at 02:23 PM

Wilbur: You're not the first person whose claimed Chomsky was (or is) a holocaust denier, but I haven't been able to get my hands on any concrete statement from him. Do you have a quote or a source?

ps: I'm not a Chomsky apologist, I'd just like to have something a bit more concrete the next time I run into one of his Dittoredheads on the net.

Posted by: Sean at September 12, 2003 at 03:58 PM


Try here.

Posted by: ZsaZsa at September 12, 2003 at 08:23 PM