RE: Re: Chomsky in the news

["Max Sawicky" <sawicky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thomas just lies in the first graph, since Chomsky was clearly
referring to indirect deaths resulting from the lack of output from
the pharmaceutical plant.  Whether the latter is true I couldn't
say, but Thomas fails to even acknowledge it.  So he/she
is on that account untrustworthy in general.  In the Hitchens
exchange, Chomsky was persuasive on this count.

More important, however, is the curious claim that the U.S.
plans to "destroy" Afghanistan or cause untold mass deaths.
Without doubt innocent lives are and will be lost to hunger,
disease, and other injury as a result of the U.S. mission,
and all of that could be expected (and glossed over by
U.S. authorities) before the fact, but the accusation that
this is in and of itself an objective seems a huge slander.
Certainly the burden of proof for such an accusation is
on the source -- Chomsky -- but I have yet to see any.

Why resort to this sort of fairy tale?  Reality is
always bad enough.

mbs


. . . As to "plans to further destroy the hunger-stricken country", it is
hard to make out from the given quote exactly what is meant by this,
though Thomas seems to know somehow that this is not true, though he
provides no supporting evidence for this claim.