While Harris _states_ that Chomsky is missing his mark when Chomsky claims that Osama is retaliating for US Hegemony in the Arab world, Harris backs this claim up with only the statement the fundamental Islam demands that attrocities like the WTC attack must happen anyway as a result of the faith of the Muslims. Well, maybe that's what is in print in the Koran, but perhaps there is more to their motivation than that. But we can't know because he doesn't dig in any deeper than that.
In this section, in which Harris chose to depart from his thesis on faith and rather take issue with Chomsky and Ms. Roy, it would have been particularly beneficial to see a dialgogue between Harris and the targets of his claim. that would have been far more interesting.
I generally agree with the Harris thesis of the dangers of being sure about unknowns and unknow-ables, but I think the attack on Chomsky's analysis of the world stage is over-reaching. And the Dershowitz line is flattly out of line. It appears that a new faith is brewing. What should we do?
