numbers please

[Michael Eisenstadt]

One night watchman was killed when we blew up
that plant AT NIGHT to avoid casualties.

1

The number of Sudanese who died because they 
didnt take the drugs that the plant was producing,
is unknowable.

"That the toll is dreadful is hardly in doubt"
says Chomsky at the bottom of this paragraph.
"Enormous human toll." 

I would ask Chomsky at this point to guess-timate
the enormous human toll. We know of 1 death, that
of the night watchman. Is he suggesting 10, 100,
1000, 10,000? Like Roger, Chomsky's rhetoric is
unscientific because he wont specify a guess-timated
number.

Here is the paragraph (forwarded by Jim)

"That Hitchens cannot mean what he writes is clear, 
in the first place, from his reference to the 
bombing of the Sudan. He must be unaware that he 
is expressing such racist contempt for African 
victims of a terrorist crime, and cannot intend 
what his words imply. This single atrocity 
destroyed half the pharmaceutical supplies of a 
poor African country and the facilities for 
replenishing them, with an enormous human toll. 
Hitchens is outraged that I compared this atrocity
to what I called "the wickedness and awesome cruelty" 
of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 (quoting Robert 
Fisk), adding that the actual toll in the Sudan 
case can only be surmised, because the US blocked 
any UN inquiry and few were interested enough to 
pursue the matter. That the toll is dreadful is 
hardly in doubt."

the 4500 killed on 9-11 = the number of Sudanese who
died because they could not take the drugs which the
destroyed pharmaceutical factory would have otherwise
produced where the 1 night watchman died.

conclusion: either Chomsky is not speaking in good 
faith and knows it or he is nutty