The FBI "Has No Evidence"

This new article provides background and context to the Muckracker Report article which states that the FBI has "no hard evidence" linking Bin Laden to 9/11.

Duuuh osama had nothing to

Duuuh osama had nothing to do with it.

William Arkin's new piece...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR200606...

Fear mongering is hat it is.

I still find it hard to

I still find it hard to believe that the following point has gone completely unreported in the British and US media for the last five years: Even if the fat guy in the "smoking gun" video IS OBL, he did NOT say what everyone thinks he said. As confirmed by three independent experts, the alleged "translation" is a shoddy fake.

NOTE: I live in Germany, I saw the programme referred to, and I can confirm that it is one of the most renowned and longest-runnning current affairs magazines on TV. And I can also confirm that the Pentagon has never rebutted the programme's conclusions (much less refuted them). This is the only evidence ever presented for OBL's guilt, and it is a sick joke.

So please: GET THE WORD OUT!

__________---

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?p=87797&sid=dfa2aea4b...

Mistranslated Osama bin Laden Video -the German Press Investigates

by Craig Morris
Email: cmorris (at) t-online.de
23 Dec 2001
Modified: 13 Jul 2004

A German TV show found that the White House's translation of the "confession" video was not only inaccurate, but even "manipulative".
Mistranslated OBL video - Germany's Channel One investigates

On 20 December 2001, German TV channel 'Das Erste' broadcast its analysis of the White House's translation of the OBL video that George Bush has called a 'confession of guilt'. On the show 'Monitor', two independent translators and an expert on oriental studies found the White House's translation not only to be inaccurate, but 'manipulative'.

Arabist Dr. Abdel El M. Husseini, one of the translators, states, 'I have carefully examined the Pentagon's translation. This translation is very problematic. At the most important places where it is held to prove the guilt of Bin Laden, it is not identical with the Arabic.'

Whereas the White House would have us believe that OBL admits that 'We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy'', translator Dr. Murad Alami finds that: 'In advance' is not said. The translation is wrong. At least when we look at the original Arabic, and there are no misunderstandings to allow us to read it into the original.'

At another point, the White House translation reads: 'We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day.' Dr. Murad Alami: ''Previous' is never said. The subsequent statement that this event would take place on that day cannot be heard in the original Arabic version.'

The White House's version also included the sentence 'we asked each of them to go to America', but Alami says the original formulation is in the passive along the lines of 'they were required to go'. He also say that the sentence afterwards - 'they didn't know anything about the operation' - cannot be understood.

Prof. Gernot Rotter, professor of Islamic and Arabic Studies at the Asia-Africa Institute at the University of Hamburg sums it up: 'The American translators who listened to the tapes and transcribed them apparently wrote a lot of things in that they wanted to hear but that cannot be heard on the tape no matter how many times you listen to it.'

Meanwhile the US press has not picked up on this story at all, reporting instead that a new translation has revealed that OBL even mentions the names of some of those involved. But the item is all over the German press, from Germany's Channel One ('Das Erste' - the ones who broke the story, equivalent to NBC or the BBC) to ZDF (Channel Two) to Der Spiegel (the equivalent of TIME or the Economist - visit http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,174025,00.html
if you can read German). More surprisingly, as I write the following site appears on Lycos in German: http://www.netzeitung.de/servlets/page?section=1109&item=172422 - but nothing under lycos.com in English.

Instead, we read in the Washington Post of Friday, December 21, 2001 (the day after the German TV show was broadcast) that a new translation done in the US 'also indicates bin Laden had even more knowledge of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon than was apparent in the original Defense Department translation.... Although the expanded version does not change the substance of what was released, it provides added details and color to what has been disclosed.'

I'll say. Aren't there any reporters in the US who speak German (or Arabic, for that matter)' An article in USA Today of 20 December 2001 sheds some light on why the original translation might not be accurate: 'the first translation was rushed in 12 hours, in a room in the Pentagon'. So why didn't the new US translation find the same discrepancies as the German translators did' Read the article in USA Today against the grain: 'Michael, who is originally Lebanese, translated the tape with Kassem Wahba, an Egyptian. Both men had difficulties with the Saudi dialect bin Laden and his guest use in the tape, Michael said.' Why can a Saudi translator not be found in a multicultural country like the US, especially with the close business relations between the US and Saudi Arabia? Bush Sr. probably knows any number of them himself.

Of course, if we ever hear about the German analysis in the US press, the reactions will be that some will never believe that OBL is behind the attacks no matter what you tell them. But actually, Americans are just as stubborn in refusing to face facts. One moderator on Fox News complained to his interviewee that the European media were focusing too much on civilian casualties in Afghanistan. (I wondered which European languages this moderator could speak; a few weeks later, he happened to say on his show that he had had 'three years of German'. This, he claimed, would allow him to 'do the show in German.') His interviewee responded that, yes, the Taliban were very savvy manipulators of the media. So there we have it: Europeans get their information straight from the Taliban Ministry of Propaganda.

Craig Morris is a translator living in Europe. He can be reached at cmorris (at) t-online.de. The original broadcast of the German show can be viewed in German at http://www.wdr.de/tv/monitor/real.phtml?id=379.

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/rosebud/mistranslated_OBL_video.htm

http://www.radio4all.net/prog

http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=18388

Prof. Boyle explains Democrats failure to impeach Bush, the role and history of neocons, PNAC, and preventive war, the anthrax link to 9-11 and US biowarfare program

after you have finished listening to it you have concluded:

1) no change (no impeachment) will come from the establishment AS A WHOLE.

understand this! it means all and any revelation of 911 truth is NOT GOING TO BE CONSEQUENTIAL

2) therefore you can only conclude that change will only come from the people. Much like the people of the GDR went to protest on the street EVERY MONDAY.. until the change came.
Only the USA will not have a super-rich neighbor that will bring goods-trains full of cash and goodies to soften the change.

therefore

to avoid violence and the resulting FURTHER AND WORSE INJUSTICE you need to have a cunning plan or obey someone like chomsky or scott ritter BLINDLY and slavishly. (as you see here this is also not a good solution!)

What is it that you are hoping for??

You Chomsky-haters and NEOLIBERAL-IDEOLOGY-infected heap of individuals that cannot agree on anything for 2c.

Tell me..

I'd be really interested to know.

Do you dream that a NEW CONGRESS will continue to rule the USA benevolently and steer it wisely round the rocky shores?

HA HA HA ... 35years of hollywood have conditioned you all to believe in a carthatic-cleaning final explosion... after which the violins will play again.

i said it below, and i'll

i said it below, and i'll say it again, Chomsky is a coward and a gatekeeping shill who would rather take his government grants and live lavishly than talk openly and honestly about what his government REALLY does. he only scratches the surface because its profitable.this is coming from a hardcore liberal(for the most part.)

No One I Met In Chicago Has

chris, i think that he has

chris, i think that he has been threatened... if not then he is a fucking piece of shit... lol

"this is coming from a

"this is coming from a hardcore liberal(for the most part."

Chomsky is not a "liberal", although he tends to agree with the spirit of liberalism's roots (Adam Smith etc.). Chomsky argues -- rightly I think -- that liberalism is nothing but an escpape valve for elites, a way to ennervate popular movements and channel them into a safe political arena where they can be rendered benign. The ideals of liberalism and the harsh realities of capitalism are simply not compatible, as Rocker pointed out decades ago. the original "liberals" would roll over in their grave if they saw their philosophy's modern incarnation, which embraces imperialism and wage-slavery.

If people in the 911 movement were smart they would not dismiss Chomsky simply because he doesn't get into the conspiracy stuff. He -- and people like him -- are the only ones offering viable alternatives. All I see from the Alex Jones' of the world is more of the same. It's unfortunate that Chomsky doesn't get into 911, but he can't be all things to all people.

"he only scratches the

"he only scratches the surface because its profitable"

lol. I guess that's why he risked his job at MIT by urging a tax revolt against the Vietnam war (he ended up on Nixon's shit list).

Chomsky penentrates the surface far, far deeper than anyone involved in the 911 movement, sorry to say.
False flag operations are themselves a symptom of deeper power relations, not the be-all-end-all of political philosophy. No one in the 911 movement comes close to Chomsky when it comes to analyzing power relations, which are the real cause of events like 911. Hierarchy, wealth disparity and competition are the real "inner circles", not the CFR or Bilderberg or CIA mind control experiments. I know, MKULTRA is far "sexier" than, for instance, studies of the economic motives of the "founding fathers", but if you really want to see actual change instead of more of the same you're gonna have to do your homework.

So Joe, we should just

So Joe, we should just follow Chomsky & pretend 9/11 was perpetrated by Osama, and accept that more such "jihads" are inevitable? I don't think so.

Let's expose 9/11 as the state-sponsered mass murder it was, and let the cards fall where they may. It seems worth it to me.

Bravo, Joe, and very well

Bravo, Joe, and very well said. I think Chomsky can cope with being crapped on by ants.

(And yes, it's a shame that he hasn't been more publicly sceptical about 9/11. But as he keeps stressing, he's not an investigative journalist. Besides which, he's nearly 80 years old and he's already achieved a heroic life's work.)

"(he ended up on Nixon's

"(he ended up on Nixon's shit list)."

That is impressive, but it's nothing compared to ending up on the neocon shit list. I'm sure Chomsky's on that one too, but his name would be below those working to expose the 9/11 coup which made all of their other crimes possible.

DOWNLOAD and MIRROR and play

DOWNLOAD and MIRROR and play on your home-FM-transmitter.

Info about the interviewee:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Boyle

Bravo, Joe, and very well

Bravo, Joe, and very well said. I think Chomsky can cope with being crapped on by ants.

(And yes, it's a shame that he hasn't been more publicly sceptical about 9/11. But as he keeps stressing, he's not an investigative journalist. Besides which, he's nearly 80 years old and he's already achieved a heroic life's work.)

Bismillah, Chomsky is the one who is crapping on all of us by helping conceal the truth behind 9/11.

You don't have to be an "investigative journalist" to see that 9/11 was an inside job. If Chomsky can't see this, I would suspect his other work is just as flawed.

Maybe it's time for your 80-year-old gatekeeping hero to retire.

The reason people criticize

The reason people criticize Chomsky over 9/11 is b/c of his immense influence with liberals/leftists who look to him for approval as if he was God. His silence on 9/11 has cost the 9/11 truth movement perhaps hundreds of thousands of supporters.

Exactly!!!

Thank you for your honesty. Loads of people figure that if Chomsky doesn't believe it was an inside job, then it definitely wasn't one, and no further investigation is warranted.

"Bravo, Joe, and very well

"Bravo, Joe, and very well said. I think Chomsky can cope with being crapped on by ants."

That's a disgusting comment. Over the last 10 years I have read nearly every thing Chomsky has written and have always admired him. But there has been no political event during the past few decades that even remotely compares to 9/11 in terms of its domestic and global impact, or which poses a grave threat (potentially to one's life/career) to those individuals speaking out.

The reason people criticize Chomsky over 9/11 is b/c of his immense influence with liberals/leftists who look to him for approval as if he was God. His silence on 9/11 has cost the 9/11 truth movement perhaps hundreds of thousands of supporters. Chomsky himself has complained about the cult of personality that surrounds him. To suggest that he should be free of criticism, particularly in these dark times when we need all of the support we can muster, makes you look like a brainwashed cult follower who believes in the infallibility of "the leader."

Perhaps Chomsky's jackass

Perhaps Chomsky's jackass friend, Ward Churchill, can take his place.

That other gatekeeper, instead of accusing the gov't mass murder, said that all the people in the WTC "little Eichmanns." 90% of those people were clerks, secretaries, maintenance guys, janitors, security guards, etc.

"little Eichmanns" WTF???

You're a heroic Anonymous,

You're a heroic Anonymous, Anonymous.

"I would suspect his other work is just as flawed."

You would suspect. Well, I suspect - with much more justification - that you're one of the many ants who loves to take a crap on Chomsky without having the slightest acquaintance wwith his work.

"Chomsky himself has

"Chomsky himself has complained about the cult of personality that surrounds him."

Precisely. So stop expecting him to be your Leader!

This is beyond satire.

Correct. I'd like to take a

Correct. I'd like to take a crap on any gatekeeper who lends credibility to Bush/Cheney & the "official lie."

"Precisely. So stop

"Precisely. So stop expecting him to be your Leader!"

I don't, but too many other people do. That is the problem. Chomsky, in an honest and forthright way, needs to clearly and loudly proclaim that his opinion on 9/11 is irrelevant b/c he hasn't done the research. That's the only thing I expect from him at this point, but it really is the least he can do.

Correct, Anonymous. And I'd

Correct, Anonymous. And I'd also like to agree with Anonymous that Anonymous is right.

The reason people criticize

The reason people criticize Chomsky over 9/11 is b/c of his immense influence with liberals/leftists who look to him for approval as if he was God. His silence on 9/11 has cost the 9/11 truth movement perhaps hundreds of thousands of supporters. Chomsky himself has complained about the cult of personality that surrounds him. To suggest that he should be free of criticism, particularly in these dark times when we need all of the support we can muster, makes you look like a brainwashed cult follower who believes in the infallibility of "the leader."
Anonymous | 06.07.06 - 11:13 pm | #

thank you!!!

Correct, Anonymous. And I'd

Correct, Anonymous. And I'd also like to agree with Anonymous that Anonymous is right.
Anonymous | 06.07.06 - 11:27 pm | #

that was good...

In January of 2002, Noam

In January of 2002, Noam Chomsky was asked the following question by an audience member at a speaking engagement for FAIR in New York: "Is there credible evidence that some part of the US government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks?" His answer: "That's an internet theory and it's hopelessly implausible. Hopelessly implausible. So hopelessly implausible I don't see any point in talking about it." As a matter of fact, the accusation of evidence for USG complicity had been made just days before by former top German minister and widely recognized intelligence expert Andreas von Buelow in an interview with Tagesspiel, adding weight to a number of independent investigations that had already been very effectively raising serious questions for several months. No, not quite an "internet theory."

Ok, I'm ready to start crapping now.

http://www.questionsquestions.net/topics/gatekeeper_ncjfk.html

"Chomsky is a coward and a

"Chomsky is a coward and a gatekeeping shill who would rather take his government grants and live lavishly..."

This is the kind of foul-smelling ant-crap I was responding to.

"To suggest that he should be free of criticism, particularly in these dark times when we need all of the support we can muster, makes you look like a brainwashed cult follower who believes in the infallibility of "the leader."

I never once said "he should be free of criticism", or anything even remotely like it.

Anyway, this thread exemplifies perfectly why Chomsky refuses to get into it. Being an optimist, I'm going to ask whether anyone, anonymous or not, has anything whatsoever to say about the 50-month-old German TV revelations at the top of this page (which haven't yet reached the US media).

Anonymous is wrong.

Anonymous is wrong.

But Anonymous, by contrast,

But Anonymous, by contrast, is right.

Mr. Bismillah, I've added

Mr. Bismillah,

I've added your German mistranslation article.

Thanks, GW. It really

Thanks, GW. It really deserves a lot of publicity.

Just to clarify, though: Craig Morris (not me) wrote the article, and two excellent veteran German journalists made the programme.

Listen to Andreas von

Listen to Andreas von Buelow.

Anyway, this thread

Anyway, this thread exemplifies perfectly why Chomsky refuses to get into it. Being an optimist, I'm going to ask whether anyone, anonymous or not, has anything whatsoever to say about the 50-month-old German TV revelations at the top of this page (which haven't yet reached the US media).
Bismillah | 06.07.06 - 11:40 pm | #
WHY? WHY WOUILD YOU DEFEND A MAN THAT IS TOO MUCH OF A COWARD TO SPEAK HONESTLY ABOUT STATE SPONSORED TERROR? WHY? i dont fucking get you people. im as liberal as they come and i see Chomsky as a traitor for his silence. STOP STICKING UP FOR THAT GATEKEEPING BASTARD.

you heard the man, Chomsky

you heard the man, Chomsky says its "hopelessly implausible" for any part of the government to be involved in 9/11. YOU RESPECT THAT MAN!?!?!?!?!?!?! stop it.

and lets not forget the

and lets not forget the bullshit work he did, or should i say didnt do on the JFK killing. he says there is now way it was a conspiracy. Chomsky has a history of covering up horrible government involved crimes. i get it, hes done a lot of great work, ive read a lot of his stuff, but you have to be honest, regardless of how much you appreciate his past work. the man is a coward.again, he may have done some great work in the past, but he knows what NOT to talk about. hes a very smart man and for him to sit there and say "i just havent done the research" and "its hopelessly implausible that any part of the government was involved in 9/11" is complete bulshit, and you SHOULD know it.dont give him a pass because you respect the work he has done.he doesnt deserve it.

Chomsky is wrong about 9/11

Chomsky is wrong about 9/11 - me thinks he just doesn't want to go there. but he's brilliant about other things. Greg Palast doesn't like getting near 9/11 but reveals alot of truth.

This is a very human characteristic. We're all wired differently.

Dick Cheney is the enemy, not Chomsky . . we can agree on that.

In Life of Brian, the three anti-Roman groups fight each other because it would be insane to oppose the Romans.

Groups were:

People's Judian Front
Judian People's Front
Front of Judian People

And there was one man who fought for the "right to have babies."

Early Python was loaded with brilliant truth

bozo, Gatekeepers are our

bozo, Gatekeepers are our enemies!

Well said about Chomsky^, Chris!

i agree, Greg Palast is one

i agree, Greg Palast is one of my favorite journalists, and i have personally gotten into it with his webmaster/secretary over his views on 9/11. and guess what she told me? she told me "Greg has the same views on 9/11 that people like Chomsky do". she specifically said Chomskys name when referring to Palasts views and silence on 9/11. do you see the problem? like i said before, ive read a lot of Chomsky and respect his work, much like i respect Palasts work, but they are both cowards for refusing to "go there" and it saddens me that some people here make excuses for them simply because you enjoy a lot of their work. i do too, but they will not get a pass from me.especially Chomsky, since he came right out and said he refused to believe it was even remotely possible for any part of the government to have been complicit in 9/11. Palast didnt go that far, and has at least asked some questions, he just hasnt gone nearly far enough.its a huge void on an otherwise great record for Palast.

its a huge void on an

its a huge void on an otherwise great record for Palast.
Chris | Homepage | 06.08.06 - 11:49 am | #
and thats the case for more than just Palast and Chomsky.sad but true.

I dunno folks, Chomsky is

I dunno folks, Chomsky is far more intelligent & learned guy than me, but I see 9/11 truth & yet he can't? I can't believe this.

If there is a "cult of

If there is a "cult of personality" around chomsky I really don't see it. It's not as though he's a captivating public speaker; certainly, he's no MLK. He warns against making it about "him" rather than the issues because he doesn't WANT people to "follow him". He's an anarchist, and as Zapata once said, a "strong people needs no ruler". Anyone who actually takes the time to read his material will come to the same conclusion. No one I've met "worships" him or "blindly follows" whatever he says; in fact, the strongest criticism I've seen of his work has come from anarchist sites like infoshop, among people who have probably read far more Chomsky than anyone on this website.

I only feel it necessary to defend him when he is being slandered as an "agent" or a "piece of shit".

One of the things you have to understand about Chomsky is that he honestly believes that (what are usually dismissed as "conspiracy theories") are a monumental waste of time. He thinks they drain enormous amounts of time and energy from other forms of activism, that they are not issues through which the mass of the population can effect real lasting change, and that they make people lose site of the more important institutional analysis.

I do NOT agree, except perhaps with the last -- from reading sites like infowars it is clear that obsessing over the details of 911 takes priority over institutional analysis.

One argument working in Chomsky's favor is that the efforts to effect change through the JFK assassination were basically nil (although they did -- and this is important -- awaken many people to the criminality of their government). Another is quoted on his blog, where he mentions a declassified memo where spooks at the Pentagon talked about leaking juicy details of the JFK assassination in order to focus people's attention on the "grass knoll" when a scandal was in progress.

It's simply a strategic decision on chomsky's part -- he doesn't devote time to studying the subject because he doesn't think anything will come of it. Indeed he thinks it will become a huge destraction and actually harm efforts by activists.

Is he right? Time will tell. But I for one think that he is wrong. There is real potential in the 911 movement.

Chomsky's an old man, and you know what they say about old dogs and tricks. He's also notoriously stubborn. My advice would be to go after other left radicals like Zinn and Cockburn.

"[Ward Churchill] said that

"[Ward Churchill] said that all the people in the WTC "little Eichmanns." 90% of those people were clerks, secretaries, maintenance guys, janitors, security guards, etc."

Actually, he made clear that he was NOT referring to the above-mentioned, but rather the "technocrats of empire" who grease the wheels on the process known as globalization. Millions of people die needlessly every year as a result of this process. Eichmann was not a raving lunatic. He was a quiet family man. Churchill also made clear that he included himself on the list of those reponsible for the empire (he pays taxes, doesn't he?), but there are degrees of culpability. Pure evil does not necessarily come with a maniacal grin, it can be exceedingly banal. The Eichmann comment was, in fact, very astute, if poorly worded in the original essay.

Churchill's comment that 911 truthers are somehow "racist" because they think Arabs couldn't have pulled it off was extremely ignorant, however. He should apologize and acknowledge that no Arabs on the planet could have demolished WTC7.

I dunno folks, Chomsky is

I dunno folks, Chomsky is far more intelligent & learned guy than me, but I see 9/11 truth & yet he can't? I can't believe this.
Anonymous | 06.08.06 - 12:40 pm | #
exactly, i will never make excuses for that man like some people do.how can you lie to yourself like that? as if Chomsky cant devote a half hour to reading the alternate info about 9/11.you know damn well he can,probably indeed has but doesnt want to touch it.why? who cares what the reason is, probably financial,but ultimately it doesnt matter. hes a coward for it. is it strategic? well maybe,but thats total bullshit regardless.9/11 only affects nearly everything thats going wrong in this country and much of the events around the world, the islamic terror movement is being blown out of proportion, and people like Chomsky buy the biggest lies of all(9/11,bin laden,zarqawi myths,etc) and calls it blowback for our foriegn policy.sorry Noam, 19 arabs(who trained at US bases,but you wont hear that from Chomsky) with box cutters didnt pull off 9/11 alone, and you know it yet you dont address it.that makes you a coward.its really that simple to me.

bottom line, i think Chomsky

bottom line, i think Chomsky is afraid of being slandered as a "conspiracy theorist" so hes too weak minded to broach subjects like JFK,9/11 and various CIA atrocities.he also wants to keep getting those high paying speaking engagements so hes either completely greedy,a complete coward, or a mixture of both.i know its not because he "hasnt done the reseach" as he claims.give me a break.

"various CIA

"various CIA atrocities"

Chomsky has written more about CIA atrocities than anyone else I'm aware of, except perhaps William Blum.

"hes a coward for it. is it strategic? well maybe,but thats total bullshit regardless."

You can't have it both ways. Either it is strategic, in which case cowardice has nothing to do with it, or it is cowardice, in which case strategy has nothing to do with it.

From his comments on this matter and others (JFK, black helicopters etc.) it is clearly a strategic decision; he does not believe anything substantive will come from 911 truth, indeed he thinks the opposite -- that it will drain enormous amounts of time and energy from other (he feels) more important struggles --international solidarity, peasant movements in Latin America, economic democracy, ecological issues and so on, hence he doesn't get into it.

Think of it like Alex Jones' theory about the Pentagon. Jones think it's a "honeypot" designed to distract truthers from the more solid evidence. To Chomsky, 911 truth is itself one big honeypot.

I had an email exchange with him a while back on the subject. To paraphrase, he said something like: "let's say you're right..just line up a few thugs in a front of firing squad and we're back to our noble free market democracy."

He has a point: most 911 truthers don't seem to have any solutions. People like Alex Jones LOVE the American system; they only have problems with institutions like the CFR and the Federal Reserve. The "Founding Fathers" created a near-perfect system, so the theory goes.

Do I agree with Jones? No. Does that mean I think he's an agent? Or a coward? Or only in it for the money? No.

Do I agree with Chomsky's position on 911? No. In fact I think I think the left gatekeepers are making a strategic ERROR, and told him as much in said email.

As for financial gain, the claim is ridiculous and shows that you know basically nothing about him. I doubt you've read a single book of his, though you claim to. Nearly ALL of the profits from his books (which are massive) he gives away to charity. You don't read 40 newspapers a day and devote 7 hours daily to answering emails from basically anyone -- regardless of stature -- in order to get rich. You don't put your career on the line and risk going to prison to get rich. You don't give talks in Palestine and Guatemala for zero cash to get rich.

I have no problem with people criticizing Chomsky for his stance on 911 -- I do it myself -- but at least take the time to read his work before engaging in this type of slander. Even David Ray Griffin, who is surely just as irked as the rest of us that Chomsky hasn't come out on 911, had enough character to call him a "great man" regardless. You would too if you read his work instead of just getting second-hand distortions from the likes of Alex Jones.

Again, criticism of Chomsky is perfectly warranted, not only on 911 but on other issues as well, but many of you come off sounding like 3rd graders. Chomsky is not a "god", he's a man; sometimes he's right, sometimes he's wrong. But just because he doesn't get involved in 911 doesn't mean his entire body of work should be discarded. Baby and bathwater, as it were.

Finally, some are expressing shock that people are "defending Chomsky" with respect 911. That is not my intent. Since I don't agree with Chomsky's position I have no desire to defend it. Regardless of whether he has some strategic reason for ignoring 911 truth, he should still do what's right and call a spade and a spade. What I AM defending is the right of promiment intellectuals to disagree with us without being labeled "pieces of shit" and "CIA agents" and "cowards". These sorts of tactics are counterproductive, infantile and reflective badly on everyone engaged in 911 truth.

Thanks, Joe. Great post(s).

Thanks, Joe. Great post(s).

A Timeline of CIA

A Timeline of CIA Atrocities

By Steve Kangas

http://www.voxfux.com/features/cia_atrocity_timeline.html

he has ignored many of the atrocities contained here(this man was murdered for this.Steve Kangas is a real journalist.)most notably the hit on JFK(he refuses to "go there" just like with 9/11.)

You can't have it both ways.

You can't have it both ways. Either it is strategic, in which case cowardice has nothing to do with it, or it is cowardice, in which case strategy has nothing to do with it.

WRONG. his "strategy" is precisely what makes him a coward. you should not stratigically ignore the most significant event in modern history that has an effect on seemingly every aspect of life because you "dont wanna go there".

and again, ive read enough

and again, ive read enough Chomsky to indeed respect his work, but you keep shitting on Alex Jones and downplaying 9/11 just like Chomsky and its bullshit to me. Alex Jones has guts, something Noam knows nothing about.

we clearly disagree on the

we clearly disagree on the importance of 9/11 joe, and thats ok. we would probably agree on more than we disagree about, but you obviously agree with CHomsky that exposing the 9/11 lies would not get us anywhere.i disagree.but how can you defend the fact that he claims to not have done any real research into 9/11 itself? dont you find that odd? the man is clearly extremely bright, and you would think since 9/11 is connected to so many things that are happening geopolitically and in this country today, he would like to know a bit more about it.(forget WTC7 and bombs in the towers and Marvin Bush running security, how can Noam not care about the put options and various FBI road blocks and the wargames etc? what excuse does he have for that? he doesnt want to know ANYTHING about that day?he doesnt think knowing more about that day would help him overall in his views considering what 9/11 means? you dont find that strange? his COMLPLETE silence? at least people like Palast acknowledge something is majorly wrong there. Noam wont even do that.)

Alex Jones doesnt have time

Alex Jones doesnt have time for politics like Chomsky, thats whats so great about him.hes a hardcore republican and im so friggin far to the left and it doesnt matter one bit.because the work Alex Jones does gives people info they aint gonna get from the likes of a Chomsky.Chomsky wants to sit there and say 9/11 was a result of "blowback" while Alex Jones calls 9/11 for the bullshit that it CLEARLY is.Chomsky is dead on when it comes to geopolitics for the most part, but his silence on certain issues will forever taint how i see the man.and you say Alex Jones gives second hand distortions? at least he can see an inside job for what it is.............

"he has ignored many of the

"he has ignored many of the atrocities contained here"

Which one? You'll have to be more specific.

"JFK"

I don't see anything in that link about JFK.

I have no intention of defending Chomsky's position on the JFK hit; what I will say is that he has devoted lots of ink to exposing Kennedy's atrocities -- which were vast -- rather than idolizing him like most of the JFK theorists. His contributions in this area are arguably just as important as those of his counterparts, since they shatter the myth of Camelot and remind us that no one person -- whether "conservative" or "liberal" -is capable of saving us from this disaster. We have to do that ourselves.

"Steve Kangas is a real journalist."

Chomsky is not a journalist.

"you should not stratigically ignore the most significant event in modern history that has an effect on seemingly every aspect of life because you "dont wanna go there".

No argument here, though "most significant" is debatable. Highly significant, to be sure.

"his "strategy" is precisely what makes him a coward."

Again, doesn't follow.

"you keep shitting on Alex Jones and downplaying 9/11 just like Chomsky and its bullshit to me."

I don't downplay 911. Nor does Chomsky. Chomsky rightly points out that a few thousand dead is another day in the empire for people in the third world, but he also called 911 an "atrocity". Americans tend to have a hard time with the concept of universality, however, so I won't push the point. As for "shitting on Alex Jones", I admit that I disagree with him on many issues -- capitalism, feminism, Religion, gay rights, immigration, beatniks, Vietnam, McCarthy, the role of the state, democracy, the second coming of Jesus and so on -- but I also agree with him on many issues.

Same as Chomsky. I don't feel the need to follow the leader and slavishly mimic this or that intellectual or public personality, agreeing with everything they say.

The fact that Jones doesn't talk about the massive wealth disparaties present at the time of the Constitutional convention, or why that convention was organized, or thomas Jefferson's tyranny during the war, or Madison's blatant elitism, or the Pinkerton Detective Agency, or America's blood-soaked labor history etc. etc. etc. does not lead me to dismiss his entire body of work (such as it is). I respect him for who he is. I don't feel the need to call him a "piece of shit" or a "coward" because I disagree with him on one issue, no matter how important.

"you obviously agree with CHomsky that exposing the 9/11 lies would not get us anywhere"

Actually, I don't. I think the 911 fraud offers great possibilities. I also think it's important to understand very clearly the tactics of our enemies. Yet we have to move beyond mere slogans, and we can't excpect that simply "supporting the constitution" will rectify the situation. It didn't work the first time and there's no reason to suspect that it will now. A complete change of paradigm is needed, and for that we have to look to people like Chomsky, who offer real alternatives.

sorry, that was me

sorry, that was me

so Chomsky has enough balls

so Chomsky has enough balls to go after Kennedy himself, but not his killers? and your ok with that? wow. thats a new one for me.
what is Chomsky offering? what alternative? more bullshit theorys about blowback?he adds nothing.Alex Jones,who i also disagree with on most of the issues you sighted,at least moves the ball forward by informing people, all Chomsky does is preach to the converted(that readily make excuses for his lack of insight and curiosity into 9/11).and your point about the fact that thousands die all the time outside of the U.S. and it isnt treated the same as 9/11 is pretty weak. 9/11 is used to justify a lot more than any deaths in third world countries, right or wrong. Chomskys 9/11 denial is painful to watch, almost as painful as watching his fans defend him for it endlessly.i read Z magazine all the time, and whenever the subject of 9/11 or al qaeda comes up with Chomsky, it makes me cringe.its so painful to see such an otherwise intelligent man that obviously holds a lot of sway over people like anonymous readily swallow the big lies of 9/11,bin laden and the farce that is the war on terror.

there is a startling

there is a startling parrallel between his silence on the Kennedy hit and 9/11. thats my point. its not worth it? talking about 2 events that changed the course of history? thats now worth doing a little research into? come on man, that should be a red flag.

we are gonna have to just

we are gonna have to just agree to disagree on Chomsky and whatever his motivation is for staying slient on such important issues.niether of us will ever really know anyway.

and no, Kangas didnt include

and no, Kangas didnt include the hit on JFK in his report, but a great deal of what he did report on,Chomsky didnt.

"so Chomsky has enough balls

"so Chomsky has enough balls to go after Kennedy himself, but not his killers? and your ok with that? wow. thats a new one for me."

I'm fine with it. There are thousands of people going after Kennedy's killers -- the bookshelves are literally overflowing with them. Yet only a handful have the guts to portray Kennedy (a "national hero" if there ever was one) in a realistic light.

Again, both lines of study are important. It's important to expose the hit, it's also important to analyze Kennedy and his atrocities with a dispassionate eye. People like Jones do the former, Chomsky the latter. I wouldn't expect Jones to talk about Kennedy's terrorist actions in Cuba or his opposition to the civil rights movement, why should you expect Chomsky to do something equally out of character?

Which is more important? It's up for you to decide. I would also add that there does not need to be a dichotomy between institutional and conspiratorial analysis. Increasingly, with the likes of Peter Dale Scott, Michel Chossudovsky, Micahel Parenti, Ralph Schoenman and the folks at GNN we're seeing a synthesis of these methods.

"talking about 2 events that changed the course of history?"

I could make the same argument about the myriad events Alex Jones ignores. Are the federalist papers not important? The holocaust against Native Americans? The Haymarket massacre? The Spanish Civil War? Greenhouse gas pollution? Pfizer's actions in Africa?

There are plenty 'o events which "changed the course of history", many to the same degree as 911. Areas of focus are determined by personal bias, are we're all victims of the same process, Chomsky, Jones and myself included.

"what is Chomsky offering? what alternative? more bullshit theorys about blowback?"

This comment demonstrates quite clearly that you have not read any of his books, or very few. An article or two about foreign policy and you think or you have the right to call him a "coward"? That's bad form, old chap. My advice is to hit the library.

"but a great deal of what he

"but a great deal of what he did report on,Chomsky didnt."

You'll have to cite specific examples of this "great deal" in order to give your thesis credibility. No doubt he has not addressed every single operation on the page, but short of people who make the CIA their sole area of study I doubt you'll find anyone anywhere who has.

so Jones paints Kennedy as a

so Jones paints Kennedy as a hero? sorry, but i think your listening to the wrong Alex Jones. it is true that he admired(as well as i) the fact that JFK wanted to destroy the CIA because of how corrupt it was/is, but that doesnt mean hes a hero. i never said he was, and i highly doubt Alex Jones ever has.that doesnt mean we shouldnt be curious about who really had him killed and why.Chomsky could care less.

i get it dude, your a fan, i

i get it dude, your a fan, i pretty much am too, but im not willing to give him a pass like you are.end of story.

Jones has talked more

Jones has talked more honestly and openly about Kennedy than Chomsky has about 9/11.that says a lot.

This comment demonstrates

This comment demonstrates quite clearly that you have not read any of his books, or very few. An article or two about foreign policy and you think or you have the right to call him a "coward"? That's bad form, old chap. My advice is to hit the library.
joe | 06.08.06 - 8:00 pm | #
ok chap, i stopped reading him after 9/11 when it was clear he no longer had any balls.

ignoring the most important

ignoring the most important issue of our time is indeed the definition of a coward if you ask me.ask Micheal Moore what ignoring 9/11 does for a career.(oh wait, he had the bit about flying saudis out on Sept12.wow.) Chomsky aint stupid, but he is damn sure a fucking coward.

http://www.venusproject.com/e

Yet he stops there. Chomsky

Yet he stops there. Chomsky does not discuss the real elephant in the room: direct CIA collaboration with media outlets and journalists beginning in the 1950's under Operation Mockingbird.

“so Jones paints Kennedy

“so Jones paints Kennedy as a hero?”

That’s not what I said – I said “only a handful have the guts” to portray Kennedy as he really was. Jones may not label him a hero but he certainly intimates it enough. Constant references to “shattering the CIA” and so on; certainly, you won’t see Jones engaging in this sort of analysis:

Chomsky:

“Another common belief is that JFK was so incensed over the failure of the CIA at the Bay of Pigs that he vowed to smash it to bits, sowing the seeds for right-wing hatreds. Again, there are problems. As historians of the Agency have pointed out, it was Lyndon Johnson who treated the CIA "with contempt," while JFK's distress over the Bay of Pigs "in no way undermined his firm faith in the principle of covert operations, and in the CIA's mission to carry them out." JFK promised to "redouble his efforts" and to "improve" covert operations. He fired the CIA's harshest critic (Chester Bowles) and appointed as Director the respected John McCone, who "revitalized the intelligence process," though persistent failures kept the Agency from returning to the "golden age." Nevertheless, the CIA was "reestablished...in White House favor" and became a "significant voice in policy making" under Kennedy, particularly in 1963, "as covert actions multiplied in Cuba, Laos, Vietnam and Africa" (including new instructions in June 1963 to increase covert operations against Castro). Under JFK, the CIA Director became "a principal participant in the administration, on a par with the Secretary of State or of Defense." The enthusiasm of the Kennedy brothers for counterinsurgency and covert operations is, of course, notorious.53

Roger Hilsman, Director of State Department Intelligence under Kennedy, writes of the efforts of the Administration to streamline intelligence operations and make them more "effective and appropriate," overcoming the incompetence of recent operations so that later ones would better serve US interests. The intent is well illustrated by Hilsman's discussion of CIA Director Allen Dulles's defense of the successful overthrow of the governments of Iran (Mossadegh) and Guatemala (Arbenz). "Dulles is fundamentally right," Hilsman states. If the Communists remain "antagonistic" and use subversion, then we have a right "to protect and defend ourselves" -- by overthrowing a conservative parliamentary regime or a reformist democratic capitalist government and imposing a murderous terror state.”

“Chomsky could care less.”

I’m sure you’re right. Would you lose sleep at night wondering who capped a murderous tyrant? Probably not – and that’s the way Chomsky (rightly or wrongly) views JFK.

“i get it dude, your a fan, i pretty much am too, but im not willing to give him a pass like you are.”

IÂ’m not willing to give him a pass, and nowhere have a said as much. I think Chomsky SHOULD be critiqued for his position on 911. the only thing I object to is the infantile slander.

“ok chap, i stopped reading him after 9/11 when it was clear he no longer had any balls.”

Yes, well, if you donÂ’t intend to read any of his work then allow me to suggest that you stop insulting him. Speak not of what you are ignorant, so it goes.

“ignoring the most important issue of our time is indeed the definition of a coward if you ask me.”

Typical American exceptionalism.

It does not occur to you, for instance, to regard Pfizer’s decision to spend the majority of its earnings on lobbying and advertising instead of R&D as “the most important issue of our time”, even though millions of children die every year as a result. It does occur to you to regard Monstanto’s “killer seeds” as “the most important issue of our time”, even though countless farmers suffer enormously as a result. It does not occur to you to regard decisions by western governments to deregulate fossil fuel emissions as “the most important issue of our time”, even though global warming threatens to kill (potentially) billions of people and destroy our environment. It does not occur to you that the birth of the world social forum in Latin America was the “most important issue of our time”, even though it offers hope to poor people around the world.

Jones ignores these issues. Is he a coward? See the problem?

You have tunnel vision. 911 on the brain. As much as I hate to agree, even partially, with Chomsky’s stance on 911, this is precisely the problem he was talking about – ignoring everything around you EXCEPT FOR 911. Becoming OBSESSED with ONE issue. We have to guard against this kind of thinking. 911 is highly significant – it should be exposed for the fraud that it was – but we should not become so obsessed with it that we fail to see the big picture.

“Yet he stops there. Chomsky does not discuss the real elephant in the room: direct CIA collaboration with media outlets and journalists beginning in the 1950's under Operation Mockingbird.”

He doesnÂ’t need to. The press was whoring for big business long before the CIA was even born, for a very simple reason: money. Class interests. Mockingbird may make it worse, but it is not the source of the problem. For that you'll need to peal back the onion and read some Chomsky.

"not saying its gospel, its not, but you cant ignore it all."

Indeed I can, since everything in that article is either intentionally misconstrued, unintentionally minsconstrued, or taken completely out of context. The conclusions drawn from the quotes are hilarious. I debunked it point-for-point on another website. Some of the passages are outright lies (for instance, in the first couple of paragraphs the author talks about Chomsky ignoring Paperclip and the CIA's involvement in the drug trade -- both lies). Definitely one of the shoddiest hit-pieces I've ever come across.

Tuesday, April 25, 2006 Meet

Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Meet the new Osama, Imad Mughniyah

The Bush Administration needs a new terrorist attack before the fall. It has to keep control of Congress to avoid any impeachment problems, but must keep the polls close enough to be able to continue to use the crooked voting machines without the American public becoming suspicious and trashing them before the next presidential election (the Republicans haven't honestly won a presidential election since 1988, and won't be winning another one soon without a little electronic help). In order to sell the terrorism 'product' they need a new scary guy to front the operation. Bin Laden is past his sell-by date, and Al Zarqawi has been officially retired and really only worked the market for Iraq anyway. I think we now know who the new Osama is, a name from the past.

Michael Ledeen introduced the name in a column in January. The President of Iran visited Syria, and Ledeen wrote:

". . . it should not have surprised anyone that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad flew to Damascus last Thursday to meet with Bashar Assad, nor was it surprising that among his entourage were key Iranian officials in charge of Hezbollah, probably including the operational leader, Imad Mughniyah."

Note that Ledeen didn't really have any information that Ahmadinejad had brought Mughniyah, just that Ahmadinejad had brought Iranian officials with him, and Mughniyah was 'probably' with them. It actually seems highly unlikely that Ahmadinejad would brought Mughniyah along, especially given that Mughniyah is still a wanted criminal, and Syria would not want him around. Mughniyah is thought to be responsible for a number of attacks against Americans, including the 1983 bombing in Lebanon. Actually, only a raving Zionist would find it plausible that the President of Iran would pay an official visit to another country with an entourage which includes an internationally-wanted terrorist. In fact, Ledeen begs lots of questions in assuming Ahmadinejad brought officials with him who were 'in charge of Hezbollah', and the whole article is just more typical Ledeen lies and spin and innuendo.

Ledeen's unlikely guess is then repeated (full article here) in the New York Sun (note the completely misleading headline), and cites the meeting as a fact based on foreign (no doubt Israeli) 'diplomatic sources'. Finally, the story arrives fully developed, and as a certainty, in the London Sunday Times (with yet another wild headline). It is now supported by 'senior government officials', who Ledeen says, are convinced Mughniyah was there, despite the fact they don't know what he looks like and don't have his fingerprints. Must be identification by magic.

Mughniyah is perfect, as the story now ties together Iran, Syria and Hezbollah with a terrorist known to have a long involvement in attacks against Americans. The new Osama is ready to be held responsible for the next terrorist attack against Americans, and will be able to help the Republicans keep control of Congress without too much electronic help, and point the blame to whatever patsy the Israel Lobby wants to attack next.

Indeed I can, since

Indeed I can, since everything in that article is either intentionally misconstrued, unintentionally minsconstrued, or taken completely out of context. The conclusions drawn from the quotes are hilarious. I debunked it point-for-point on another website. Some of the passages are outright lies (for instance, in the first couple of paragraphs the author talks about Chomsky ignoring Paperclip and the CIA's involvement in the drug trade -- both lies). Definitely one of the shoddiest hit-pieces I've ever come across.
Anonymous | 06.08.06 - 8:47 pm | #
point for point huh? seems to me like your nothing but a groupie. i would never waste my time trying to defend Alex Jones endlessly like you defend the gatekkeper Chomsky. give it up man, your a groupie.

that "one issue" you speak

that "one issue" you speak of only affects FUCKING EVERTYTHING. you cant see that? you honestly cant see how Chomskys silence on 9/11 is irrational or cowardice? its one fo the two, and i think hes too smart to be irrational.

Chomsky barel speaks about

Chomsky barel speaks about the CIA drug trase, he basically only mentions it in passing. the guy is a gatekeeper, but youve obviosuly invested a lot of time in his work so it must be tough for you to see people bashing your hero. hes playing you like a fiddle.at least your smarter than him when it comes to 9/11 though.(news flash, this is a 9/11 truth site if you didnt notice)

sorry for the typos, im in a

sorry for the typos, im in a hurry.

“Yet he stops there.

“Yet he stops there. Chomsky does not discuss the real elephant in the room: direct CIA collaboration with media outlets and journalists beginning in the 1950's under Operation Mockingbird.”

He doesnÂ’t need to. The press was whoring for big business long before the CIA was even born, for a very simple reason: money. Class interests. Mockingbird may make it worse, but it is not the source of the problem. For that you'll need to peal back the onion and read some Chomsky.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, he doesnt need to? is there anything you make excuses for this guy over? anything?

oh, and i LOVE this CHomsky

oh, and i LOVE this CHomsky esque line you dropped, he really has rubbed off on you:Typical American exceptionalism.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAA

you are CLEARLY a VERY BIG

you are CLEARLY a VERY BIG FAN of Chomsky, im sorry i offended you. your worldview fits so perfectly with his,except on 9/11(sort of) so you give him a pass.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, he doesnt

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, he doesnt need to? is there anything you dont make excuses for this guy over? anything?
Chris | Homepage | 06.08.06 - 9:09 pm | #
oops.

“i would never waste my

“i would never waste my time trying to defend Alex Jones endlessly like you defend the gatekkeper Chomsky.”

You’re doing a pretty good job lol, especially for a self-professed "liberal". Again, you’re not listening to what I’m saying. Jones is every bit the “gatekeeper” Chomsky is – only on different issues. You’re clearly obsessed with 911, so you haven’t the capacity to understand this.

“that "one issue" you speak of only affects FUCKING EVERTYTHING.”

And global warming doesn’t? How about peak oil? Does Alex Jones’ theory that peak oil and global warming are “myths” (an opinion shared by approximately 0.1 percent of the scientific community) prove that he is irrational? A coward? A gatekeeper? An agent for the illuminati?

“you honestly cant see how Chomskys silence on 9/11 is irrational or cowardice?”

Depends on his motivation, which IÂ’ve already explained, and which you apparently didnÂ’t understand.

“Chomsky barel speaks about the CIA drug trase, he basically only mentions it in passing.”

Oh yeah? Where’s your proof? I think you’re talking out of your ass. Chomsky’s analysis of the drug trade is infinitely more compelling than anything spewed forth by your beloved Jones. From the recitation of the Mafia by the CIA after WWII for purposes of strike-breaking, to the birth of the “French Connection”, to the many purposes of the phony “war on drugs” (decimation of inner cities, eliminating the “superfluous” population, driving down wages, providing a pretext to slaughter rebellious coca farmers in Colombia etc.), to Poppy Bush’s squelching of an investigation into drug money laundering, his analysis runs the whole gambit. But you wouldn’t know that. ‘cause you’re clearly ignorant of his work. Yet you have the audacity to impugn his good-intentions. Pretty weak.

“it must be tough for you to see people bashing your hero.”

HeÂ’s not my hero. I donÂ’t need heroes. I respect him just as I respect a lot of other people. When people I respect get called "pieces of shit" it seems only natural, not to say honorable, that I repay the favor.

“HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, he doesnt need to? is there anything you make excuses for this guy over? anything?”

You missed the point – I don’t NEED to excuse the Mockingbird omission. Mockingbird was an insurance policy. Far more important are the kind of issues explored in Manufacturing Consent. Or did you think every single mouthpiece in the press was a CIA agent?

I feel no need to excuse Chomsky when I consider him in error. On 911 for instance. Explaining his probable motivation is the not same thing as excusing his actions, any more that explaining the motivations of a suicide bomber would equate to condoning their actions.

“oh, and i LOVE this CHomsky esque line you dropped, he really has rubbed off on you:Typical American exceptionalism. BWAHAHAHAHAHAA”

I’m glad you find it amusing – sure beats having to address the arguments. Your laughter may be dampened, however, by the fact that said term was around long before Chomsky came onto the stage.

“you are CLEARLY a VERY BIG FAN of Chomsky”

If you mean by “fan” that I’ve been enriched by his analysis just as I’ve been enriched by analyses from countless other people, “conspiracy theorists” included, then sure. You are CLEARLY a VERY BIG FAN of Alex Jones. Which is surprising. Considering he's clearly a bigot.

Anyway, this argument has degenerated into insults, so I’ll be on my way. Good luck with the whole “balance of powers” stuff – hope the whole “republican limited democracy congressional reshuffling” thing works the second time around.

It seems that many truthers are only capable of two thoughts: “911 was an inside job” and “support the constitution”. Can’t say that bodes well for the future of the movement, but I’ll continue to speak out on the issue while suggesting viable alternatives to the state-capitalist paradigm. Hopefully, some of you will start peeling back the onion as well.

peeling back the onion? your

peeling back the onion? your boy Chomsky is a company man.he hasnt changed shit. you are a fucking groupie.all i see from you is excuses for a man who doesnt touch certain issues.(didnt do research into 9/11?really?Mockingbird is not important enough to talk about?really Chomsky?really Chomsky groupies?) i have called Alex Jones out on this site and others numerous times for his "bigotry" as you say and have been lambasted here because of it, but the fact remains that he has more guts than your boy Chomsky will ever dream of.despite the obvious hold he has on the lot of you groupies.if you are right about Alex Jones calling global warming a "myth" then i would say that absolutely is irrational.but to ignore 9/11?thatas cowardice.Chomsky wont talk about "Poppy Bushs" ties to the Bin Laden family though will he? not important enough for him huh? how about Clintons invlovement in Mena? did he touch that one?Anonymous said:I feel no need to excuse Chomsky when I consider him in error.really? thats about all ive seen you do(other than spout off you Chomsky rants like i havent heard them before).

"oh, and i LOVE this CHomsky

"oh, and i LOVE this CHomsky esque line you dropped, he really has rubbed off on you:Typical American exceptionalism. BWAHAHAHAHAHAA ... your boy Chomsky is a company man.he hasnt changed shit. you are a fucking groupie ... but to ignore 9/11?thatas cowardice.Chomsky wont talk about "Poppy Bushs" ties to the Bin Laden family though will he? not important enough for him huh? how about Clintons invlovement in Mena? did he touch that one?Anonymous said:I feel no need to excuse Chomsky when I consider him in error.really? thats about all ive seen you do(other than spout off you Chomsky rants like i havent heard them before)."

"Rants"? Er... right.

another Chomsky groupie huh?

another Chomsky groupie huh? that guy is good.......

you guys sure are loyal. to

you guys sure are loyal. to a fault.

When a former Bush

When a former Bush administration insider makes such charges, how can the media ignore them? Is Reynolds a lone crank? Hardly. A long list of prominent Americans have spoken out for 9/11 truth: Rev. William Sloane Coffin, Sen. Barbara Boxer, former head of the Star Wars program Col. Robert Bowman, ex-Reagan administration economics guru Paul Craig Roberts, progressive Jewish author-activist Rabbi Michael Lerner, former CIA official Ray McGovern, author-essayist Gore Vidal, and many other respected names from across the political spectrum have gone on the record for 9/11 truth.

Are the media ignoring all these people, and dozens more like them, because there is no evidence to support their charges? Hardly. Overwhelming evidence, from the obvious air defense stand-down, to the nonprotection of the president in Florida, to the blatant controlled demolition of World Trade Center building 7, proves that 9/11 was an inside job. As noted philosopher-theologian and 9/11 revisionist historian David Griffin writes: "It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."

A growing list of scientists has lined up behind BYU physicist Steven Jones and MIT engineer Jeff King in support of Griffin's position, as evidenced by the growth of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (st911.org) and Scientific Professionals Investigating 9/11 (physics911.net).

so whats wrong with Chomsky? im sure you groupies will have a list of excuses.......

Sure, anybody with a brain

Sure, anybody with a brain can discern the obvious hoax perpetrated on
all of us by our supposedly own government in 2001, with 9/11 horror
stories seared into our minds that we soon learned were phantom
hijackers, deliberately exploded towers, and hollow men like Bush,
Clinton, Sharon and Silverstein collecting monstrous insurance payouts
a short while later. Did you initially believe the lies? Do you still?
Or are you still rapt in the hollow accounts put out by a kept
corporate media intent more on enforcing the corporate commercial
mindlock that in genuinely informing anybody about anything? The Spin
cycle has taken over reality. Have you realized it yet?

wheres Chomsky?

May 9, 2006 Received unusual

May 9, 2006
Received unusual amount of positive comments and emails about this blog's
previous commentary. One significant comment came from Robert Livingston,
via Carol Brouillet's blog. For a telling glimpse at the depth of Noam Chomsky's
9/11 aversion, listen to this Feb. '06 Chomsky interview with Media Matters.

http://digitalstyledesigns.com/pages/Thoughts.htm#