Ex-muslims living in western world have on occasion voiced their frustration with leftists in their countries of residence who, through their zeal to come across as defending the “rule of law” and “tolerance”, have come to give murderous Islamists the victim status. In the US, there is probably no example of this more repugnant than the smug Noam Chomsky.
Chomsky has a good deal of following on the political left, even though, due to his extreme positions, few politicians would come to openly identify with him. But the fact that his views rarely form the basis of public policy, according to Chomsky himself, is due to “democratic deficit”: IF ONLY the will of the people were taken into consideration by politicians, I guess, then we’d all be living in the Chomsky-stan.
When it comes to New Atheists, Chomsky, who describes himself as an atheist, is not impressed. He goes so far as to call us “religious fanatics”-the old canard of calling atheism a “religion”.
Interestingly, Chomsky, who claims to have the public opinion on his side, had this to say about the killing of Osama Bin Laden:
In April 2002, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the FBI could say no more than that it “believed” that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, though implemented in the UAE and Germany. What they only believed in April 2002, they obviously didn’t know 8 months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know, because they were instantly dismissed) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence—which, as we soon learned, Washington didn’t have.
Thus Chomsky isn’t convinced Bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11. How about Bin Laden’s confession?
Nothing serious has been provided since. There is much talk of bin Laden’s “confession,” but that is rather like my confession that I won the Boston Marathon. He boasted of what he regarded as a great achievement.
Dismissing a confession so light-heartedly…interesting. Well in case Chomsky missed it, winning a marathon is not a crime, and boasting about a crime is considered admissible evidence legally. Anyways, Bin Laden himself had this to say about 9/11:
You, the American people, I talk to you today about the best way to avoid another catastrophe and about war, its reasons and its consequences.
And in that regard, I say to you that security is an important pillar of human life, and that free people do not compromise their security.
Contrary to what [President George W.] Bush says and claims — that we hate freedom –let him tell us then, “Why did we not attack Sweden?” It is known that those who hate freedom don’t have souls with integrity, like the souls of those 19. May the mercy of God be upon them.
Claiming responsibility through the rhetorical question “why we did not attack Sweden” and threatening more…well not that Chomsky would be convinced anyway. Interestingly, while Chomsky is unsure about Bin Laden’s guilt, he doesn’t name any other suspect. How is this to be interpreted? Is Chomsky toying with 9/11 “truth” conspiracy theories? The nutjobs of “truth movement” are about the only ones having questioned Al Qaeda’s involvement in 9/11, aside from Chomsky himself.
In the end, what is most glaring is Chomsky’s hypocrisy, in complaining about a “democratic deficit”, while in a complete representative democracy, Chomsky, the Bin Laden defender, could not get elected dog catcher.
