Barrie Zwicker on Noam Chomsky
On Saturday, August 12, 2006, Webster Griffin Tarpley interviewed Canadian author and media critic, Barrie Zwicker, who has a new book coming out about 9/11, "Towers of Deception". During the 2nd hour of the interview, starting at the 35:00 minute mark, Tarpley encouraged Zwicker to express his views about Chomsky’s reluctance to engage in skepticism of the official 9/11 narrative. Here are a couple excerpts, with a longer partial transcript here.
Noam Chomsky… this does appear to be one of the most fascinating parts of the book for a lot of people and I’m frankly even a little surprised myself at how well this is being received. I think that a whole lot of people had intuited that there’s something wrong with Chomsky. That there’s something strange, mysterious, contradictory, absurd, about his refusal to see that anybody other than Lee Harvey Oswald might have killed JFK, his refusal to become involved in looking into, whatsoever, the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy and Malcolm X, and then, of course, although a lot of people cut him slack and were in effect in denial about Chomsky on those decapitations of the Left… but 9/11 came along, it’s a Litmus test, I swear it’s a Litmus test for every individual, every organization… where do they stand on 9/11?...
... We don’t need Noam Chomsky anymore to tell us about the death squads in El Salvador, we don’t need Noam Chomsky to tell us about East Timor. We need Noam Chomsky to be on board, telling us about 9/11, and how it was done from the White House.
And because he consistently steers away from the toxic core of what the oligarchy does by way of massive fraud, and therefore manipulation of the public for their Neocon agenda of global domination and resource theft, he in essence is working for them...
MP3 Downloads:
Please use the RBN link first, go to site and download Saturday, August 12, 2006, (Individual MP3 - Hr2)
From the RBN Archive
2nd Hour local mirror – 6.86 MB
Here is a 2-part YouTube video of Noam Chomsky being asked about 9/11 prior knowledge and possible orchestration, he gives an answer (8 minutes in total);
- Login to post comments
The NY Times: "Our Porous
The NY Times: "Our Porous Air Defenses on 9/11"
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/13/opinion/13sun2.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&ore...
"The reports include a new book written by the co-chairmen of the 9/11 commission, a Vanity Fair article based on tapes released by the military, and a 2005 report from the inspector general of the Defense Department that was finally released last week. They paint a picture of confusion as civilian and military authorities struggled to grasp and respond to what was happening. There was absolutely no evidence that any air defenders deliberately stood aside to let the terrorists have their way or that the military itself fired a cruise missile into the Pentagon, as conspiracy theories have suggested."
Not a word about war games. Fuckers.
Noam Chomsky is a paid of
Noam Chomsky is a paid of shill. Michael Moore is a paid of shill. End of story.
ive been around quite a few
ive been around quite a few rightwing libertarians, and they have all been very anti 9/11 truth as far as ive seen. they come with the same "your crazy, tin foil hat blah blah" stuff as typical republicans in my opinion.
Anonymous: I misread this
Anonymous: I misread this essay. The quote comes from another MIT professor, a man named Selwyn Bromberger and not Chomsky. I do recall him saying that he was concerned that anti-war protests during Vietnam might push the government into outright totalitarian, a risk he finally decided he had to take, but I can't source that at the moment either or provide a quote so I'll pull back from my third point.
"Noam Chomsky is another
"Noam Chomsky is another Zionist Jew."
I won't respond to this nitwit personally, but for those who may be swayed by this type of rhetoric google "Chomsky" + "Dershowitz" or "Finkelstein" + "Chomsky". Funnily enough for this "Zionist Jew" (who opposed the statehood of Israel), the most rabid Zionists spend half of their time trying to discredit him.
Also check out the debate between Dershi and Chomsky; should be available online somewhere.
If in fact, Chomsky himself is known as a "virulent anti-semite" among many Jews lol.
peak oil + zionism = agenda
peak oil + zionism = agenda
RJ, I happen to believe peak
RJ,
I happen to believe peak oil is real. I was trying to be judicious. :-)
I also don't think it really matters "why" the neocons were behind 9/11. Establishing that they were behind 9/11 should be treason enough for people to revolt. The "why" issues just obscure and complicate the "how", which at this point, I believe, has been proved adequately.
Noam Chomsky is another
Noam Chomsky is another Zionist Jew..these people keep showing up in the middle of everything involved with 9/11...I keep seeing arguments about the people who put information out there and then We end up disappointed with them later on.The power behind 9/11 is the ability to control the press,which means the shadow criminals also have the ability to blackmail governments into complicity;considering how many of Congress who are guilty of taking money from lobbies,this is certainly power to use them to shut up and go along. They have their talking heads in the press to look as if they are on side(convincing enough to be considered reliable) but are really not.Such as the quote of Chomsky that Chris put in;
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum."
The people to be wary of are those who put out disinformation,and those who call for more war.Along with those who ridicule Us about the WTC towers,when We know that the obvious to Us should be obvious to them,and their line of questioning shows they don't want to reach that point.
Keep in mind that they can use the CIA in any way they need to,not all of the CIA,but the ones who are experts in how to create confusion and endless leads,putting out disinformation. The Shadow government,or nation,or circle within..knows how to use this while attaching credible names to it.
The good news is that many people in this site are turning into a bunch of damn good investigaters,and that discussion will lead to the theory,a motive,a consensus,a movement,a smoking gun,a hearing..justice
"While energy is spent on
"While energy is spent on "more important" things; False Flag is going to be used over, and over, and over, until Anarcho-Socialists, Greens, etc., are all defined as terrorists and outlawed in the name of "Homeland Security".
Just my opinion."
Rep, I agree, no argument here. There's a place for both institutional and "conspiratorial" analyses, ideally a combination of the two a la Chossudovsky and Peter Dale Scott (and occassionally Chomsky, believe it or not); what I object to are these absurd claims that Chomsky is an "agent" for the illuminati etc.
These sorts of claims will not bring Greens, radicals, anarchists on board, but (rightly) repel them. Besides, if you look at GNN, for instance (mostly anarchists) -- and I'm aware you have a blog there -- hardly anyone buys the official story anyway.
"only time will tell if he's
"only time will tell if he's right about peak oil"
http://thumbsnap.com/v/5emD3zTK.jpg
While energy is spent on
While energy is spent on "more important" things; False Flag is going to be used over, and over, and over, until Anarcho-Socialists, Greens, etc., are all defined as terrorists and outlawed in the name of "Homeland Security".
Just my opinion.
reprehensor | Homepage | 08.13.06 - 1:39 pm | #
I totally agree, reprehensor!
R, "It's beyond absurd, and
R,
I disagree, and starting off with a handful of insults is hardly a way to prove a point, is it?
And that's where he stops. Here's what Zwicker said;
Has Chomsky ever called for, or joined a call for an independent investigation into the deaths of MLK or MalcolmX? (I would like to know, seriously. But provide a link, please.)
Herein lies the dilemma. Who are you, or Chomsky, to say that the institutionalist worldview trumps the conspiratorial view?
Although Chomsky dabbles with CIA and narco-trafficking, he's hardly a "go to guy". That would be Peter Dale Scott, and the reluctance of the establishment Left, (Chomsky, Goodman, Znet, etc...), to incorporate the strata of "Deep Politics" into their worldview on a meaningful level; which acknowledges the Invisible Government, (fleshed out by David Wise back in 1964), and the manifestations of its power which are denied or ignored by the same luminaries, leaves all of us ill-prepared for their next moves.
I love "Manufacturing Consent", and the "New Mandarins" these and many other books by Chomsky still have power. But Chomsky is too intelligent not to see what is going on, and so Zwicker has expressed his discontent in book form.
While energy is spent on "more important" things; False Flag is going to be used over, and over, and over, until Anarcho-Socialists, Greens, etc., are all defined as terrorists and outlawed in the name of "Homeland Security".
Just my opinion.
Douglas, the first two
Douglas,
the first two points seem like an honest assessment (a rarity around here when it comes to Chomsky).
The third, however, sounds like a made-up quote. Do you have a source?
Yes, douglas, but Chomsky
Yes, douglas, but Chomsky has done, & continues to do, irreparable harm to the truth movement!
I agree with CK: Ruppert
I agree with CK: Ruppert isn't a disinfo agent. He's just an egotist. And Crossing The Rubicon still presents, I think, the best chance of anything happening to the perps of 9/11. The war games exercises are still the best smoking gun, because you can attach names and documents to these exercises, and you don't have to spend decades debating the physics of collapsing buildings.
That's why everyone should write a letter to the NYT over today's editorial about air defenses on 9/11:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/13/opinion/13sun2.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
letters@nytimes.com
I know it won't do any good, but they should at least be hassled for their bullshit.
One other thing about Ruppert: He shouldn't be knocked for his pessimism. He's simply stating an opinion about 9/11 Truth based on a previous generation's experience with JFK investigations. I don't agree that people should just throw up their hands and walk away because it looks hopeless. But Ruppert is entitled to believe that 9/11 Truth will go the way of "JFK Truth".
Only time will tell if he's right about peak oil.
In my opinion there are
In my opinion there are three reasons why Chomsky won't touch the issue of 9/11 complicity.
1. He finds conspiracy theories to be a waste of time in general. By this I mean he does not operate on the level of speculation nor does intrigue and cover-up particularly excite him. Instead he focuses on cataloging what he considers to be substantiated examples of institutionalized crimes.
2. He is not ideologically in line with the libertarian right, and has an aversion to the tactics and mindset to the libertarian right. That's the real home of the 9/11 Truth movement. It's the far right in this country that has embraced "9/11 truth".
3. He's afraid to confront 9/11 for fear of rousing the beast. On JFK Chomsky is reported to have said: "If they are strong enough to kill the President and strong enough to cover it up, then they are too strong to confront directly . . . if they feel sufficiently threatened, they may move to open totalitarian rule."
I think Chomsky is wrong on all three counts. I think there is sufficient evidence of complicity on some level to warrant investigating, I think it's a terrible failure to allow the far right to dominate this issue, and I think the aim is to move to open totalitarian rule through the use of 9/11 and other similar staged events.
So, in my opinion, Chomsky is wrong. He's too careful, too stubborn, trapped by fear of being perceived as a lunatic and fear of the government.
None of this makes him an agent, nor does it mean that the work he is doing is useless or in any way a boon to the State.
Remember Chomsky say that if the Nuremberg principles were applied every American president would've been hung. That certainly applies to the curret Resident regardless of what happened on 9/11.
No, it is Chomsky who should
No, it is Chomsky who should be ashamed of himself for being one of the biggest, most effective 9/11 gatekeepers on the planet!!!
I constantly ask the
I constantly ask the question:
What if all is going as planned? Stir the people to action and dissent, then start arresting the protesters. It can't happen here?
DO NOT RIOT | 08.13.06 - 1:09 pm | #
I know, this is exactly what happened in Germany merely 65 years ago. I'm sure they thought that couldn't happen to them either!
Go watch "Manufacturing
Go watch "Manufacturing Consent" and tell me Chomsky is an "agent". The claim is so goofy it should make everyone on this website red-faced.
Incidentally, declassified documents show that Chomsky was listed as one of the main "enemies of state" by Richard Nixon.
I constantly ask the
I constantly ask the question:
What if all is going as planned? Stir the people to action and dissent, then start arresting the protesters. It can't happen here?
It would help if Ruppert
It would help if Ruppert woudn't say 9/11 is unimportant any more.
Anonymous | 08.13.06 - 12:50 pm | #
Anonymous, I know. And, I don't really believe he thinks that. In fact, he said that if Hugo Chavez asked him to come to Venezuela for a hearing on 9/11 (something Chavez has eluded to), he'd go. I just think he's working on the premise that physical evidence is a mistake for the 9/11 truth movement, based on historical precedence in courtrooms where it's one expert against another expert. He's probably right, but he still pisses me off for essentially abandoning the movement, which I think has a lot more to do with ego than principle.
This "Chomsky is an agent"
This "Chomsky is an agent" stuff is an excellent way to make ourselves laughing stocks to progressives and radicals everywhere. It's beyond absurd, and a sign of either fantastic paranoia, lack of maturity or flat-out ignorance.
A lot of the accusations leveled against him are simply false, including the recent ones by Zwicker; for instance, he has expressed support for the idea that MLK and Malcolm X were assassinated by the state, and he openly talks about the CIA's involvement in the drug trade; as for the Kennedy's, he's more interested in exposing them as the war-mongerers they were than pouring over the details of their assassinations, which is natural for an anarchist.
The claim that he supports a "world government" are also ridiculous; again, he's an anarchist (as opposed to the oxymoronic anarcho-capitalist, a uniquely American offshoot of anarchism). If you're interested in learning more about this school of thought study Spain circa 1935, or go download the film "Vivir la utopia".
People like Alex Jones will have to accept that not everyone is in love with the American constitutional system -- in fact, those that are constitute a tiny minority of people on this planet.
While Jones believes in an authoritarian governmental system formed of centralized power and subservient to capitalism (or wage-slavery), Chomsky believes in decentralization and federation, along with a system of economic and political direct democracy.
Criticizing Chomsky for his stance on 911 is fine, but the idea that he is somehow "working for them" is so ridiculous it will sap your credibility wherever you spread this slander. He has done more to expose state and corporate power than all 911-truthers combined, not in the "sexy" conspiratorial sense, obviously, but in the more important institutional realm, the state-capitalist system which gives rise to these conspiracies.
If you find yourself calling Chomsky a "shill" and havent' read a large quantity of his work, you should be ashamed of yourself. At the very least, go read "Understanding Power" before you spit in the face of this wonderful human being, whom at least David Ray Griffin had the character to call "a great man".
To me Chomsky is clearly
To me Chomsky is clearly aiding indefinite, if not endless war by letting the NeoCons stay in power & not challenging them like he should be.
It would help if Ruppert
It would help if Ruppert woudn't say 9/11 is unimportant any more.
My take on Ruppert is that
My take on Ruppert is that it's his EGO that gets in the way. I will never buy into the idea that he's a gatekeeper or disinfo agent, simply because he isn't highly influential in any particular circles. So if he's not influential in a big way to any large segment of the population, it makes no sense that he'd be compromised.
But he IS incredibly defensive and lashes out at the 9/11 truth movement because they don't do things his way. That's an obvious sign of way too much ego, in my view.
His ego shows up all the time over at FTW too -- in comments, he's often on the defensive and is tooting his own horn a lot -- a sign of insecurity, not of a gatekeeper.
I still respect him, and I certainly agree with his stance on Peak Oil, and although his ego does bother me, he still is making worthwhile contributions in his geopolitical dot-connecting.
as far as Chomsky, he is not
as far as Chomsky, he is not the enemy, but his tactics need to be roundly exposed, and thats why i continue to post percieved "anti-Chomsky" stuff. im not anti Chomsky, i still regularly read Z magazine and find a lot of his work pretty spot on, but i will never give him a pass on 9/11, or any of the other "inside jobs" he has ignored.
I strongly advise to wisely
I strongly advise to wisely choose your enemy ... is NC your enemy ? I do not think so. He has the same enemy as 9/11 truth has : the Pentagon and the neocons. He has the right to fight the
way he chooses to do so ...
Chomsky is NOT fighting the Pentagon & the neocons! He is not even neutral about it! He is deliberately gatekeeping 9/11. He is a fraud.
and you gotta love when
and you gotta love when Ruppert confronted the head of the CIA about drug running. somebody has GOT to get that clip up, thats classic stuff right there......
or maybe, dmx, Ruppert is
or maybe, dmx, Ruppert is the one you should be worried about. he is the one that said the movement is "dead" in so many words. since hes said that, the movement has only gotten much much stronger. i dont wanna bash Ruppert though, hes made so many contributions, to more than just 9/11 too. his book is exsuative and amazing, even if you dont buy his peak oil theories, his chapters on 9/11 and echelon, PROMIS and other things more than made up for his peak oil rantings.
Chomsky = obvious left
Chomsky = obvious left gatekeeper.
Ruppert = possible high-level gatekeeper/excuse maker & promoter of "peek oil" pretext for 9/11 & wars of aggression in Middle-East.
I strongly advise to wisely
I strongly advise to wisely choose your
enemy ... is NC your enemy ? I do not
think so. He has the same enemy as 9/11
truth has : the Pentagon and the neocons.
He has the right to fight the
way he chooses to do so ...
So I think it is unfair to say he is working
for the governement because he
is not endorsing the struggle of 9/11
truth. I remember Bush saying "Either
you are with us or you are with the
terrorists ..." I hope 9/11 truth is
not following Bush's steps.
I also have seen 9/11 truthers blaming
one of the greatest contributors of
the movement, Mike Ruppert, because
they disagree with his analyses of the
judicial situation of the movement ...
I think these are really sad moves ...
"Shampoo 8/11"? Are you
"Shampoo 8/11"? Are you referring to the Gatorade attacks? No pop on plains please. What a sick joke. These guys are really desperate. This one is more ridiculous than the Osama in his "Bat Cave" one. You remember that one. The one that happened on 9/11/2001 when the towers were blown up by the Bush mob and pinned on some sick dude on dialysis. How much more of this crap can people take?
They'll blame Ghouliani, &
They'll blame Ghouliani, & Ghouliani will blame them.
when the fill in for Russert
when the fill in for Russert asked them what they meant when they wrote they should have been "tougher" with Giuliani, they didnt even get specific at all.
is anybody taping or
is anybody taping or watching Kean and the other guy from the 911 commission on tv?
yizzo | 08.13.06 - 11:06 am | #
i saw some of it, it was really weak. nothing new to hear there, just promoting that stupid book they have coming out.
Gee, who ever thought planes
Gee, who ever thought planes could be used as weapons & flown into buildings?
Gee, who ever thought liquids could be used as weapons on planes?
is anybody taping or
is anybody taping or watching Kean and the other guy from the 911 commission on tv?
Third of Americans suspect
Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy
Scripps Howard News Service http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll
yes i have, but that wasnt
yes i have, but that wasnt my qoute, its from the oil empire link.
http://team8plus.org/e107_plu
http://team8plus.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?3651.10#post...
August 13, 2006
March 2006: Pakistan had prior knowledge about "Shampoo 8/11"- reported back in March 2006 on ABC and on Team8+
Team8Plus wrote about alleged 'shampoo 8/11' ringleader Matiur Rehman already back in March 2006 in our series "Scripting "Terror Soap": Yemen, UAE etc..."
In one report this alleged terror attack against the U.S., here called "Shampoo 8/11"
was already announced:
http://team8plus.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?2363.10#post...
New 2006 Terror Soap No.3:
A new "Al-Quaeda leader" from Pakistan
Pt. 1- the new "terror leader"
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1676096&page=1
March 2, 2006
March 1, 2006 Pakistani officials have told ABC News that they believe they have indications that a new terror attack is being planned there against the United States...
...Pakistani military officials say Matiur Rehman, 29, a Pakistani militant, is behind the new plans for an attack against the United States.Pakistan has posted a 10-million rupee (about $166,000) award for his capture..."
...
Ringleader "suspects" framed for the next follow-up false flag for WW3-5?
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2307364&page=2
London, Aug. 13
"...While authorities in Pakistan believe they have nabbed the main players in the plot, the official said there are two or three people still at large, including Matiur Rahman, a senior figure in the al-Qaida-linked Pakistani militant group Lashkar-e-Jhangvi. Rahman's name was mentioned by one of the detainees during interrogation...
The 'other' Matiur Rahman- inspiration for the name?
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Matiur_Rahman_%28military...
Matiur Rahman (Bangla: ম) or Shaheed M. Matiur Rahman (born February 21, 1945 in Dhaka - died August 20, 1971) was a Flight Lieutenant in the Pakistan Air Force when the Liberation War broke out...
...On August 20, 1971 he attempted to pilot a T-33 trainer from Karachi, Pakistan to India in order to defect from the Pakistan Air Force and join the liberation movement of Bangladesh....
Oliver StoneÂ’s World
Oliver StoneÂ’s World Trade Center: a crude and dishonest work... http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/aug2006/wtc-a12.shtml
Even in his most recent book
Even in his most recent book "Failed States" he still sticks to the hijacker story but doesn't make it the focus of the book. I found it very surprising he didn't put the pieces together.
"That's an internet theory
A "brilliant" man like Chomsky stating that there is zero chance that the U.S. gov't had foreknowledge of 9/11??? The guy is an evil liar, IMO!!!
"Anyone who still supports
"Anyone who still supports the Warren Commission hoax after forty years of countering proofs is either ill-informed, dumb, gullible, afraid to speak truths to power or a disinformation agent."
Have you ever read anything by Chomsky?
http://xs303.xs.to/xs303/0629
http://xs303.xs.to/xs303/06296/DaGnomeChomsky.jpg
Noam Chomsky is no fool.
Noam Chomsky is no fool. Noam Chomsky must know 9-11 was an inside job. The question is, why won't he acknowledge Governmental complicity?
Paid off? Mr. Chomsky's motivation may in fact be money, although I find that argument somewhat less than compelling. Just look at how the guy conducts himself, and at 77 years old, all that would just be inheritance for his grandkids.
MIT is a nest of moles? That's plausible. Most of the work done by MIT engineers, does in fact support the official theory. John M. Deutch was a former director of the CIA, and now is professor of chemistry at MIT. Of course Jeff King also works at MIT, and he most certainly does not support the official theory.
In my mind, the most likely explanation for Mr. Chomsky's stance (and by default, Goodman's), is the inevitable association of the perpetrators with AIPAC. Whether this association is in fact material, or just coincidental common goals, is irrelevant. Should the 9-11 truth movement ever reach critical mass, those associations will be made.
Mr. Chomsky's role as a gatekeeper cannot be overstated. He needs to at least address the growing numbers of Americans dissatisfied with the 9-11 Commission report. Failure to do so will at some point lead to a complete collapse of his credibility.
Left Denial on 9/11 Turns
Left Denial on 9/11 Turns Irrational
by Jack Straw
People like Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill are turning toward the irrational as they continue to deny increasing signs that 9/11 was an inside job.
Ever since the events of 9/11, the American Left and even ultra-Left have been downright fanatical in combating notions that the U.S. government was complicit in the attacks or at least had foreknowledge of the events. Lately, this stance has taken a turn towards the irrational.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STR505A.html
Professor Noam Chomsky, one
Professor Noam Chomsky, one of the country's most famous dissidents, says that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman in Dallas. Anyone who still supports the Warren Commission hoax after forty years of countering proofs is either ill-informed, dumb, gullible, afraid to speak truths to power or a disinformation agent.
It's one thing to
It's one thing to demonstrate how and why Chomsky has it wrong, and quite another to make the accusation that he's an agent or that he's intentionally lying.
douglas lain | Homepage | 08.13.06 - 3:44 am | #
based on what he refuses to talk about, i would say assuming hes on some sort of government payroll is pretty rational.he doesnt just ignore 9/11(and JFK,MLK,RFK for that matter), he openly attacks those that feel its worth pursuing. Chomsky ignored the obvious "inside jobs" as it pertains to JFK,MLK,RFK,Malcolm X and 9/11. this is a clear pattern of downplaying or ignoring very serious crimes by elements of our own government. why? the natural conclusion is that hes being paid.......
sorry Douglas, your boy is a
sorry Douglas, your boy is a hack, and hes been exposed yet again:
Where Noam will not roam:
Chomsky manufactures consent by supporting the official stories of 9/11 and JFK
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum."
- Noam Chomsky
"I agree that Professor Chomsky is not a CIA agent. But with respect to his pronouncements on the JFK assassination he is worse than a CIA agent. Without being an agent, with his enormous prestige as a thinker, as an independent radical, as a courageous man, he does the work of the agency. ... He is unconvinced by the evidence of a conspiracy, but his is utterly convinced that JFK was a consummate cold warrior who could not have changed and did nothing to irritate the military industrial intelligence complex."
- Vincent Salandria
www.geocities.com/mdmorrissey/sal1web.htm
http://www.oilempire.us/chomsky.html
"That's an internet theory
"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."
— Noam Chomsky, at a FAIR event at New York's Town Hall, 22 January 2002, in response to a question from the audience about US government foreknowledge of 9/11.
New evidence suggests
New evidence suggests 'hijackers' had no plans to die
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10429
David Hawkins of HAWKES Cafe
David Hawkins of HAWKES Cafe says in a letter to the MIT vice president of research:
"Dr. Noam Chomsky is the de facto president of the Industrial Workers of the World - an anarcho-syndicalist (his words not mine) network which endorses the use of terror and sabotage to take custody of the global commons for a one-world labor union.
Dr. Chomsky helped CAI to pool labor union pension funds in North America; he has publicly declared support for terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and, I believe, he has set up radical labor cells ('Les Militants Syndicalistes') to sabotage democratically-elected governments and their military organizations in La Francophonie and the Anglosphere.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=11&x_article=1151
"
Source: http://www.valis.cjb.cc/HawksCAFE/080706.html
Have at it! And we're not debating the fact that this statement calls Hezbollah terrorists, we've done that already.
"TERRY LAWSON: Why we relish
"TERRY LAWSON: Why we relish conspiracies"
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060813/ENT01/608130529
"..What has surprised some people even more is that Stone did not use the film to trumpet a conspiracy theory, as he did with "JFK."
Not that he doesn't know all about the theories. Moments before I talked to Stone in Chicago about the film, he had gotten his latest earful from a journalist who wasn't exactly fair and balanced. The writer's argument that the truth about 9/11 was being covered up, Stone said, came from the left end of the spectrum, so perhaps he thought the director would be sympathetic..."
"..Stone would not say whether he believed any of the theories, only that he made the movie he thought needed to be made and that he believed eventually someone would release a fictional film inspired by the theories. Maybe it would be made out of outrage and concern, and maybe just for money..."
Or the more
Or the more sinister?:
M.I.T. 9/11 – alleged misconduct by John Deutch, Paul Gray and Noam Chomsky (08/07/06)
http://www.valis.cjb.cc/HawksCAFE/080706.html
I think the caller at the
I think the caller at the end, the caller who smeared Alex Jones, demonstrates why the previous line of argument from Zwicker and Tarpley is faulty. There is no good way to respond to character assasination or ad hominem attack. And that's what Zwicker is engaging in. Rather than attempting to discredit Chomsky's positions on 9/11 Zwicker attacks Chomsky's crediblity. It's one thing to demonstrate how and why Chomsky has it wrong, and quite another to make the accusation that he's an agent or that he's intentionally lying.
Why would they mention the
Why would they mention the war games? The media are propagandists for these fascists leading us into WWIII.
Hey rp, email me...
Hey rp, email me...
Lionel gives 911Bloggers a
Lionel gives 911Bloggers a plug on his website. Click HERE
Part of 9/11
Part of 9/11 solved...
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/08/flight-93-photo-plume-comparison.html
Barrie has got that one
Barrie has got that one right. Noam Chomsky is in essence working for them. Stay away from this fool. He's nobody. Stick with 9/11 truth. Get the word out any way you can. Your life depends on it. Buy the way, Tarpley was his usual brilliant self. He just tore the latest "foiled" terrorist attacks report to shreds. You know, the Gatorade thing. What a sick joke. People are getting awful pissed-off. They are making flying a nightmare with their lies. Only dolts believe this latest scam.
Concerning Noam Chomsky, he
Concerning Noam Chomsky, he knows which side his bread is buttered on, and he knows who's doing the buttering: the U.S. Department of Defense, as well as a number of other U.S. government agencies, which give a great deal of funding to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. MIT is the number one non-profit Department of Defense contractor in the U.S. For more on that, see:
"MIT research heavily dependent on defense department funding," Daniel J. Glenn, The Tech, Vol. 109, No. 7, February 28, 1989, pg. 5:
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V109/N7/glenn.07o.html
See also the below article by Benjamin Merhav ( http://www.geocities.com/bmerhav/ ), an Israeli Jew, in which he analyzes Noam Chomsky's motivations in regard to supporting the government of Israel, in addition to the MIT funding issue:
"More on the Treachery of Noam Chomsky," Benjamin Merhav, Double Standards, September 27, 2005:
http://www.doublestandards.org/merhav1.html
See also:
"Noam Chomsky vs. Noam Chomsky," Frank Speiser, LewRockwell.com, March 30, 2005:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/speiser1.html
Frank Speiser's above article references the below article by Noam Chomsky, wherein Chomsky supports enacting the draft (i.e., what Chomsky calls "a citizen's army"):
"The Draft," Noam Chomsky, ZNet Blogs, December 17, 2004:
http://blogs.zmag.org/ee_links/the_draft
##########
For a genuine anti-state intellectual, read the writings of Prof. Murray N. Rothbard. As Prof. Rothbard wrote concerning so-called "conspiracy theories":
""
It is also important for the State to inculcate in its subjects an aversion to any "conspiracy theory of history"; for a search for "conspiracies" means a search for motives and an attribution of responsibility for historical misdeeds. If, however, any tyranny imposed by the State, or venality, or aggressive war, was caused not by the State rulers but by mysterious and arcane "social forces," or by the imperfect state of the world or, if in some way, everyone was responsible ("We Are All Murderers," proclaims one slogan), then there is no point to the people becoming indignant or rising up against such misdeeds. Furthermore, an attack on "conspiracy theories" means that the subjects will become more gullible in believing the "general welfare" reasons that are always put forth by the State for engaging in any of its despotic actions. A "conspiracy theory" can unsettle the system by causing the public to doubt the State's ideological propaganda.
""
From the article "The Anatomy of the State," Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, Rampart Journal of Individualist Thought, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Summer 1965), pp. 1-24. Reprinted in a collection of some of Rothbard's articles, Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays (Washington, D.C.: Libertarian Review Press, 1974):
http://www.mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp
Along the lines of the state's shibboleths on "conspiracy theories," Rothbard's below article is humorous:
"Sudden Deaths in Office," Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, first published in The Rothbard-Rockwell Report (August 1991) as "Exhume, Exhume, Or, Who Put the Arsenic in Rough and Ready's Cherries?":
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard116.html
Below is a biography of Prof. Murray N. Rothbard:
"Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995)," David Gordon, Ludwig von Mises Institute:
http://www.mises.org/content/mnr.asp
In addition to Prof. Rothbard's above "Anatomy of the State," below are some excellent articles concerning the nature of government, of liberty, and the free-market production of defense:
"Defense Services on the Free Market," Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, Chapter 1 from Power and Market: Government and the Economy (Kansas City, Kansas: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1977; originally published 1970):
http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/marketdefense.html
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/power&market.pdf
"The Private Production of Defense," Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Winter 1998-1999), pp. 27-52:
http://www.mises.net/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf
http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/Hoppe.pdf
"Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security," Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Winter 1989), pp. 27-46:
http://www.mises.net/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_2.pdf
"Police, Courts, and Laws--On the Market," Chapter 29 from The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism, Prof. David D. Friedman (La Salle, Illinois: Open Court Publishing Co., 1989; originally published 1971):
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chap...
Concerning the ethics of human rights, the below book is the best book on the subject:
The Ethics of Liberty, Prof. Murray N. Rothbard (New York, New York: New York University Press, 1998; originally published 1982):
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp
If one desires a solid grounding in economics then one can do no better than with the below texts:
Economic Science and the Austrian Method, Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Auburn, Alabama: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1995):
http://www.mises.org/esandtam.asp
"Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics," Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, On Freedom and Free Enterprise: The Economics of Free Enterprise, Mary Sennholz, editor (Princeton, New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand, 1956), pp. 224-262. Reprinted in The Logic of Action One: Method, Money, and the Austrian School, Murray N. Rothbard (London, England: Edward Elgar, 1997), pp. 211-255:
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/toward.pdf
Man, Economy, and State, Prof. Murray N. Rothbard (Auburn, Alabama: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, second edition, 2004; originally published 1962):
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp
Power and Market: Government and the Economy, Prof. Murray N. Rothbard (Kansas City, Kansas: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1977; originally published 1970):
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/power&market.pdf
These texts ought to be read in the order listed above. I would also add to the above list the below book:
America's Great Depression, Prof. Murray N. Rothbard (Auburn, Alabama: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, fifth edition, 2000; originally published 1963):
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf
The above book concerns the how governments create depressions (i.e., nowadays called recessions) through credit expansion.
The small book Economic Science and the Austrian Method by Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe doesn't get into political theory, but only concerns the methodological basis of economics (i.e., the epistemology of economics). I would recommend that everyone read this short book *first* if they're at all interested in economics. There exists much confusion as to what economics is and what it is not. This book is truly great in elucidating the nature of what economics is and what it is not. If one were to read no other texts on economics, then this ought to be the one economic text that one reads. Plus it doesn't take all that long to read it.
Buzzflash sounds like Alex
Buzzflash sounds like Alex Jones. Maybe a money shot soon.
http://www.buzzflash.com/
"False Flag is going to be
"False Flag is going to be used over, and over, and over, until Anarcho-Socialists, Greens, etc., are all defined as terrorists and outlawed in the name of "Homeland Security".
This is in fact obvious. Until you call them on their rule through deception (9/11, etc.) nothing can change because they will continue to use the same tactics to control the population whenever they deem it necessary. Telling fascists to "give peace a chance" through street protests is not likely to be effective. You have to expose their dirty tricks so people won't fall for them each and every time. As far as provoking the beast: I'm afraid it's too late anyway. Even if we said nothing about 9/11, etc. these guys are taking over and from the beginning clearly had plans to go the distance. 9/11 truth is the only thing that MAY save us.
Who knows who informs Noam
Who knows who informs Noam Chomsky? Everyone could be misinformed. Everyone is well controlled. It is ridiclous to look to any of these people to save us. Americans need to save themselves. check this out.
If Noam Chomsky can't rise
If Noam Chomsky can't rise above the mainstream media consensus,and claim that the 9/11 commission report is a lie,that there are to many omissions that need to be explained,to announce how much the press ignores the obvious. Then the problem is Noam Chomsky or anyone else who will not acknowledge or pursue actual truth. Noam Chomsky is a Zionist Jew and He believes that the Talmud is anti-social,but in the silence of looking into Israeli complicity of 9/11,he allows those guilty of the act,or knowledge of the act,to be found out.
^ * to not be found out
^
* to not be found out
"I do recall him saying that
"I do recall him saying that he was concerned that anti-war protests during Vietnam might push the government into outright totalitarian"
I don't recall this; I DO recall him saying that ELITES were concerned that the Vietnam war would so radicalize the population that they would actually be in danger of revolution if they didn't end the war; this is revealed in the Pentagon Papers, where Westmoreland is denied his 200,000 extra troops by the "wise men".
"Noam Chomsky is a Zionist
"Noam Chomsky is a Zionist Jew and He believes that the Talmud is anti-social,but in the silence of looking into Israeli complicity of 9/11,he allows those guilty of the act,or knowledge of the act,to be found out."
Again, Chomsky fervently opposed the statehood of Israel, and therefore cannot be considered a "Zionist" by any stretch of the imagination.
If you had bothered to read any of his work on the subject, he engages in non-stop criticism of the Israeli state; he has also visited Palestine on numerous occassions and written passionately on their behalf.
What the fuck have you done?
The lack of cognitive dissonance here is incredible. Daniel Pipes and Dershowitz and other Zionist scum have actually created anti-Chomsky blogs and written anti-Chomsky books, but Chomsky is a "Zionist Jew"?
Whatever. You're insane.
"If you find yourself
"If you find yourself calling Chomsky a "shill" and havent' read a large quantity of his work, you should be ashamed of yourself. At the very least, go read "Understanding Power" before you spit in the face of this wonderful human being, whom at least David Ray Griffin had the character to call "a great man". ~ R.
Thank you! Coming from a long time Chomsky reader, that needed to be said. Many involved in online 9/11 speculating [which I'm all for] are relatively young and new to "politics," hence this embarrasingly retarded "Chomsky is an Illuminati SHILL" nonsense.
He's different than a Jones or Ruppert in that he's beyond well renown; he has been one of the leading voices of dissent since the Vietnam aggression, is often cited as one of the most important intellectuals still among us, and, speaking on behalf of my own good judge of character, is genuinely concerned about human rights and the overall state of humanity. Sadly, at this point, he believes we're likely doomed to global nuclear holocaust.
As to why he won't discuss 9/11 as an inside job ... one, I'm sure the Powers That Be tapped him long, long ago, and told him [to use one of Chomsky's lines] .."this far, and no further." Why? Because PEOPLE LISTEN TO HIM.
Given that many more people would stand up and take notice of Chomsky claiming 9/11 was an inside job, versus an Alex Jones or David Griffin [no offense intended to either] with his name/rep carrying that kind of weight, I'd say there is simply no way he's lived his life how he has without great external pressure, likely including death threats for him and/or his family ... or worse than death, if you follow. This was briefly alluded to in a recent doc film about Chomsky.
And secondly, Chomsky and many others are equally fearful of what tactics this govt may implement should they feel backed into a corner ...something that I'm afraid I haven't seen much of the Truth Movement address, in terms of what horrors may unfold within that Establishment vacuum. Clearly such a scenario may be no better or worse than if the Neocon fascists have their way ..plenty to second guess there.
Either way, it does the movement little good to waste time attacking him, or Amy Goodman or Greg Palast.
____________________
Chris said in response to another: "ive been around quite a few rightwing libertarians, and they have all been very anti 9/11 truth as far as ive seen. they come with the same "your crazy, tin foil hat blah blah" stuff as typical republicans in my opinion."
I agree. Within extended family, I know of a few macho/hunter/jarhead types who find the idea of 9/11 as an inside job to be plausible, although, by and large, the people I know who have researched it enough to piece together the painfully obvious are very liberal minded people who, abiding their own nature which doesn't take to authoritarian, rule-crazy propaganda, are much more comfortable thinking for themselves.
absolutely S.G.,
absolutely S.G., conservatives are more likely to blindly trust government/authority, it has always been that way. they say they hate "big government" yet they blindly trust said government.
likely including death
likely including death threats for him and/or his family ... or worse than death, if you follow. This was briefly alluded to in a recent doc film about Chomsky."
That's an interesting theory, and certainly possible; it's worth pointing out however that Chomsky himself dismisses these claims, citing the fact that he's relatively priveleged -- he's white and works at MIT and is in the public eye. At the same time, he draws attention to people like Fred Hampton of the Black Panthers, who was assassinated by the FBI.
In fact, while it's true that Chomsky seldom, if ever, engages in "conspiracy theory", he frequently engages in "conspiracy fact", the above example being one of literally thousands.
Is this necessarily a bad thing? Ask yourself: would Chomsky have reached the audience he has if had engaged in rampant speculation throughout his career, giving amunition to his many high-level critics, who pounce on him with the slightest misquote, the slightest error of context?
Personally, I think doug had it right with:
"1. He finds conspiracy theories to be a waste of time in general. By this I mean he does not operate on the level of speculation nor does intrigue and cover-up particularly excite him. Instead he focuses on cataloging what he considers to be substantiated examples of institutionalized crimes."
How often does Alex Jones talk about the working conditions of late 19th C Americans and the push by socialists and anarchists for the 8-hour-work day and the abolishment of child labor? The answer is: never. How often does Alex Jones talk about the factory take-overs in Argentina or the CNT in revolutionary Spain?
Does that mean Alex Jones is working for the illuminati? No.
People have to understand that the "inner core" of our system is not the Bilderberg group, or the CFR, or MKULTRA, or the Federal Reserve, or Zionism -- which isn't to sat that these phenonema shouldn't be discussed and dissected -- but our system of exploitation is centuries old. It goes beyond the latest booga booga secret society, including the illuminati. The real "inner core" of our so-called society is not in the least bit mysterious, which perhaps explains its lack of appeal amongst the Alex Jones' of the world: Just the same old systems of institutional hierarchy, coercion and violence and regular people fighting against them.
That's what Chomsky talks about. Do I think he should acknowledge 911 truth? Of course. But I understand why he doesn't, and it's extremely ignorant to label him or others like him "agents" simply because they focus on other things.
It seems clear to me that
It seems clear to me that Chomsky subscribes to the "doctrine of American exceptionalism." This doctrine states that America is different from other countries because our politicians are basically honest, we have little corruption, our political system is better than those of other countries, and that America is a force for good in the world. All Americans are inculcated with this doctrine in school and through the media. Therefore Americans generally find it hard to believe that their government is actually a gigantic criminal enterprise run by gangsters and thugs, or that these elites could have been complicit in 9/11, assassinations, etc. For the 9/11 truth movement to make progress, I think it needs to openly challenge this doctrine.
That's what Chomsky talks
That's what Chomsky talks about. Do I think he should acknowledge 911 truth? Of course. But I understand why he doesn't, and it's extremely ignorant to label him or others like him "agents" simply because they focus on other things.
R. | 08.13.06 - 6:13 pm | #
Dear Chomsky apologists: I don't know if Chomsky is an agent--but I do know he is a f*cking left gatekeeper, okay?
"I agree that Professor
"I agree that Professor Chomsky is not a CIA agent. But with respect to his pronouncements on the JFK assassination he is worse than a CIA agent. Without being an agent, with his enormous prestige as a thinker, as an independent radical, as a courageous man, he does the work of the agency. ... He is unconvinced by the evidence of a conspiracy, but his is utterly convinced that JFK was a consummate cold warrior who could not have changed and did nothing to irritate the military industrial intelligence complex."
- Vincent Salandria
just substitute any of the
just substitute any of the other high profile government hits like MLK,RFK,and Malcolm X with JFK and you got the same thing. also substitute 9/11.
"I agree that Professor
"I agree that Professor Chomsky is not a CIA agent. But with respect to his pronouncements on the JFK/RFK/MLK/9-11 assassination he is worse than a CIA agent. Without being an agent, with his enormous prestige as a thinker, as an independent radical, as a courageous man, he does the work of the agency. ... He is unconvinced by the evidence of a conspiracy.......
- Vincent Salandria/Chris R.
"I don't know if Chomsky is
"I don't know if Chomsky is an agent"
Then you're none too bright pal, sorry but there it is. Either that or you haven't read much of his stuff, which is a shame but not surprising.
Hey gang, I'll be having
Hey gang,
I'll be having Zwicker on my radio show this coming wednesday, Aug. 16th. I just finished his book today. Really great.
see http://feeds.feedburner.com/aluhlooyah for the download after wednesday.
"I agree that Professor
"I agree that Professor Chomsky is not a CIA agent. But with respect to his pronouncements on the JFK/RFK/MLK/9-11 assassination he is worse than a CIA agent. Without being an agent, with his enormous prestige as a thinker, as an independent radical, as a courageous man, he does the work of the agency. ... He is unconvinced by the evidence of a conspiracy.......
- Vincent Salandria/Chris R."
Whoever wrote this hasn't read Chomsky; this I can deduce from the inclusion of MLK, for which Chomsky expresses strong suspicion of a state op. Chomsky's obviously biased on the JFK issue because he loathed the man, and frankly I don't really care what he says one way or another: the public already knows JFK was killed in a conspiracy. What they don't know, and what they should, is that JFK was a war-mongering scoundrel.
"Doing the work of the CIA" is sheer absurdity, unless you regard exposing their operations in lurid detail in countless books and articles "their work".
Chomsky clearly insn't interested in the events surrounding JFK's assassination, and indeed I would be surprised if a self-professed anarchist regarded it as more than a footnote in the annals of state atrocities; rather he is interested in exposing JFK's real character -- not the one put forth by the moony dreams of modern-day liberals -- but the reality. It isn't pretty.
I'm not sure which contribution is more valuable, the conspiracy theorist's: which revelals that JFK was indeed whacked by the CIA, as we all know, or Chomsky's, who reminds people not to fantasize about a billionare saviour who will descend from the ivory towers and lead us all to victory.
To take merely one example:
"When JFK took over in 1961, the US client regimes faced collapse in both Laos and Vietnam, for the same reason in both countries: The US-imposed regimes could not compete politically with the well-organized popular opposition, a fact recognized on all sides. Kennedy accepted a diplomatic settlement in Laos (at least on paper), but chose to escalate in Vietnam, where he ordered the deployment of Air Force and Helicopter Units, along with napalm, defoliation, and crop destruction. US military personnel were sharply increased and deployed at battalion level, where they were "beginning to participate more directly in advising Vietnamese unit commanders in the planning and execution of military operations plans" (PP). Kennedy's war far surpassed the French war at its peak in helicopters and aerial fire power. As for personnel, France had 20,000 nationals fighting in all of Indochina in 1949 (the US force level reached 16,700 under JFK), increasing to 57,000 at the peak."
JFK may have wanted to withdraw from Vietnam after he realized the war was going badly, or he may have been whacked for some other reason, but he got exactly what he deserved.
"Chickens roosting", as Malcolm X put it.
As for firing Dulles and
As for firing Dulles and "smashing the CIA into a thousand pieces", this is correct, but the inference that JFK wanted to humanize the United States intelligence beuracracy is completely false. JFK wanted to do what the neocons are currently doing -- bring the CIA under direct executive control.
Ya see, ironically, both Kennedy brothers were in love with covert ops. Ever wonder why RFK campaigned against the Warren Commission? Check out a "Farewell to Justice". RFK was actually involved with the Cuban exile fanatics and played a direct role in the criminal bay of pigs terrorist invasion of Cuba.
Payback's a bitch!
I'll say one more thing and
I'll say one more thing and then, barring some particularly noxious remark, will leave this thread and be on my way.
I think it's quite likely that, had the ENTIRE OR MOST of the left intelligentsia (one or two wouldn't have made a difference) realized that 911 was an inside job shortly after the event, and communicated as much despite fears of ridicule, we would not be in the dire situation we are now.
Hundreds of millions of people would be savy to false flag operations and the elite would therefore likely abandon the tactic.
However, having pontificated about blowback for countless hours, having waxed eloquent on countless occassions about the United States' imperial history and the evils thereof, the left intellentsia has bound itself to blowback in the same way that the neocons have bound themselves to the war on terra.
Regarding "conspiracy theories" as a distraction, thinking it more important to educate people about what the United States has done to people around the world for so long and with such brutality (rather than what they did to a handful of their own on that day), too egotistical to admit that they were wrong, the left intelligentsia is now in the ironic position of aiding and abetting the next false flag attack, which in turn may bring about WWIII.
I admit this fully, and hope it changes. The only reason I have defended Chomsky and other left intellectuals on this board is because (a) the charge of "agent" is patently absurd and (b) I believe these individuals, as those who came before them (from Bakunin to Tolstoy) offer not only a correct assessment of the fundamental problems facing our society, but also a solution.
It is, I feel, therefore a monumental error to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
For more on Chomsky check out Chomsky.info.
Peace.
For me Sept. 11th is THE
For me Sept. 11th is THE litmus test. Has been for a while.
The 9/11 Truth movement will not get anywhere by appealing to Chomsky's self described "intellectual" audience. It's small anyway compared to the overall population. Perhaps he has done some damage by influencing his followers to scoff at conspiracy theories. In my world this makes him irrelevant.
(Yes, I know, historical bigwig... blah blah blah)
The way forward is educate mass numbers of people. Do not look to established authority firgures for help. Even (or especially?) historically prominent ones. Do not waste too much time attacking them either.
9/11 is the single best opportunity to break the social programming to which generations have been subjected. It is the propagandists weakest point because the cover-up is incredibly easy to expose. And because it is so exploited that every American has heard of it, daily. More obscure crimes just don't have as wide an audience. To not recognize the value of exposing 911, either foolishly or intentionally, relegates a person to the sidelines.
PS. Barry Zwicker is doing it!
:-P
Anybody know the date on
Anybody know the date on those Chomsky clips?
"To not recognize the value
"To not recognize the value of exposing 911, either foolishly or intentionally, relegates a person to the sidelines."
Perhaps. But there will come a time when solutions are needed as well as conspiracy theories, and then you'll be up shit's creek ;)
Oh right. "Respect the constitution". That'll work. This time. Honest.
I'll leave you to it;
Again, Chomsky fervently
Again, Chomsky fervently opposed the statehood of Israel, and therefore cannot be considered a "Zionist" by any stretch of the imagination.
When Noam Chomsky began his university studies,he was a member of the left-wing
Hashomer Hatzair Zionist youth movement. Nowadays,he says,that type of Zionism is described as anti-Zionist,but it used to be mainstream. So there is nobody insane here and no need to go off the deep end.
But if you claim that the eventual chain of events leading to 9/11 is a progression of events from the old institutional hierarchy,then that means We will be here many years waiting for information to be declassified or found out.Considering the rapid decline this hierarchy is moving the world,it's relevant that 9/11 truth gets a national independant investigation ASAP. If Chomsky can't put it out there that 9/11 truthers have many good points on why We push for a national referendum by saying he doesn't consider conspiracy thoeries,then We ourselves are irrelevant to him.
Besides R. ,you need to check out this website; www.thirdworldtraveler.com
Barry Zwicker's reaction on
Barry Zwicker's reaction on Noam Chomsky's attitude and comments re:911 is disappointing. Barry Zwicker applies the principle: 'He who is not with us is against us'. That principle is not recommendable for truth-seekers.
The truth-seeker must apply the principle that he/she has not yet found the truth. Therefore, he/she must continue to search.
Noam Chomsky, the scientist and intellectual, might be able to help in the truth-seeking. That must be our attitude. Not that he is our enemy just because he is of a different opinion.
The NWO would like to have
The NWO would like to have people believe that the evil in the world is caused by the instrinsic nature of man or the institutions or just "that's the way it is". This is so as to distract people from the fact that it is actually the ruling secret societies that the main cause of the problems in the world.
Basically they will promote any theory other than "conspiracy theories".
Zwicker is the man. Chomsky
Zwicker is the man. Chomsky is a very smart man, he knows 9/11 stinks to high heaven, but he cowardly sits on the sidelines. let him. we dont need his old ass anyway. his groupie ass supporters will forever make excuses for him and he knows it.
i see some people above took
i see some people above took the typical Chomsky esque line of "JFK and RFK were cold warriors and HORRIBLE presidents,human beings etc., so its not even worth pursiung conspiracy theories in regards to them." very typical. forget the men that were killed and focus on those that did the killing. this is somethign Chomsky has ALWAYS failed to do.
RFK was actually involved
RFK was actually involved with the Cuban exile fanatics and played a direct role in the criminal bay of pigs terrorist invasion of Cuba.
Payback's a bitch!
R. | 08.13.06 - 9:12 pm | #
yeah, because the alternative to RFK worked out so friggin great huh? i have no illusions about ANY politician, past or present, but saying that because RFK was a "typical" politician is a reason not to look closer at his murder makes no sense whatsoever.
Here's a video of Chomsky
Here's a video of Chomsky discussing 911 CTs. "highly unlikely, and like JFK, not important-- distracts from important issues.."
puke-o-rama, watching him whore himself like that.
http://rapidshare.de/files/29391229/chomsky_on_911.avi.html
(4MBs, 4 mins 44 secs long)
Incidentally, I open this file with VLC media player, and I get a VLC message saying "file is broken, do I want to try to fix it, which may take a long time?" I hit yes try to fix, and it begins playing immediately. Go figure, YMMV.
I agree with what "R" has
I agree with what "R" has said about Chomsky. "Truthers" are upset with him because they want him onboard but he hasn't YET come along. This could be for all kinds of reasons.
BARRIE ZWICKER HAS BEEN
BARRIE ZWICKER HAS BEEN OUTED AS DISINFORMATION -- HE'S TOLD REPEATED BUSH-NECK-SAVING OUTRIGHT LIES:
http://911blimp.net/sounds/BarrieZwickerLIEStoSaveBush-BushNEVERsaidOrdi...
(audio clips from BZ's video found at http://911blimp.net/$500reward.shtml )
ANYONE WHO STILL TRUSTS BARRIE ZWICKER HAS HIS OR HER HEAD BURIED IN THE SAND!!!
Observer/911blimp: go away
Observer/911blimp:
go away shill.
I think we can all agree
I think we can all agree that Chomsky sucks on 911. The question is whether that should render all of his other work irrelevant; the answer is obviously no.
Frankly, I wish people would stop it with the "Chomsky is illuminati" stuff; it's making us look like a bunch of ignorant quacks.
It appears that very few on this website have taken the time to study his material, which is a shame.
For every criticism you've made of Chomsky on this and other threads, I recommend you listen to/watch one of the following media clips.
Government in the Future:
http://www.chomsky.info/audionvideo/19700216.mp3
Free market fantasies: Capitalism in the real world:
ftp://metalab.unc.edu/pub/multimedia/radio4all/radio/chomsky/chomsky-fmf...
The War on Drugs
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php?op=program-info&program_id=10986&nav=...
Chomsky vs. William F. Bukley part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYlMEVTa-PI
Chomsky vs. William F. Bukley part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9Samvw6Z08&mode=related&search=
Chomsky vs. Richard Perle
http://www.snarf-it.org/downloadTorrent/328551-Noam+Chomsky+debates+Rich...
Chomsky vs. Dershowitz
http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2005/dec/video/dnB20051223...
On anarchism:
http://www.radio4all.net/pub/archive/04.01.05/anonymous@radio4all.net/16...
Is Capitalism Just?
ftp://metalab.unc.edu/pub/multimedia/radio4all/radio/chomsky/0404capital...
Another World is Possible: Alternatives to Globalization
http://forum.wgbh.org/wgbh/ram.php?id=1208&size=lo
Anarchism, Activism and Power:
http://webcast.ucsd.edu:8080/ramgen/UCSD_TV/6568ConHisNoaCho.rm
US Human Rights Policy
http://www.freespeech.org/videodb/viewers/realmedia/ramgen.php?media_id=...
http://www.freespeech.org/videodb/viewers/realmedia/ramgen.php?media_id=...
Corporations as forms of Tyranny:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/audiointerviews/realmedia/chomskyn/chomskyn...
I agree with you Danse,you
I agree with you Danse,you can't discredit the numerous volumes of work Chomsky has done,but as far as 9/11 is concerned,He is no help here.
"I agree with you Danse,you
"I agree with you Danse,you can't discredit the numerous volumes of work Chomsky has done,but as far as 9/11 is concerned,He is no help here."
Agreed. Hopefully that will change.
Focusing on Chomsky diverts
Focusing on Chomsky diverts attention from the fact that 911TRUTH.ORG'S BARRIE ZWICKER HAS BEEN OUTED AS A LIAR WHO SPEWS BUSH-NECK-SAVING DISINFORMATION!
Bronco, if this is about
Bronco, if this is about Zwicker not talking about Bushs statements about seeing the first plane hit, i suggest you read his book. he mentions this in the FIRST chapter. no plane douche.
Chris, Bush had Ari
Chris,
Bush had Ari Fleischer and Barrie Zwicker to cover for him. Apparently, Barrie Zwicker has you to cover for him.
Barrie Zwicker lied repeatedly -- BUSH NEVER SAID "ORDINARY TV" OR "REGULAR TV" -- in a vain attempt to dismiss the most incriminating aspect to Bush's statement. No amount of spin, from you or any other BZ apologist, can ever change that.
People who believe that POTUS does not have access to any more channels of communication than the avearge Joe are in dire need of deprogramming. Bush does not have an ordinary job; Bush did not say "ordinary TV". Barrie Zwicker is a liar who's been caught red-handed (or red-tongued...).
_________________________________________
BEWARE of James Redford
BEWARE of James Redford and
MISES ORG
They are neoliberal IDEOLOGES....
u2r2h
danse got it in one. Many
danse got it in one.
Many thanks for the links..
great collection.
HINT:
start a micro radio station.. broadcasting chomsky AND 911,
http://www.nrgkits.co.uk
work fine.
best,
u2r2h
People who believe that
People who believe that POTUS does not have access to any more channels of communication than the avearge Joe are in dire need of deprogramming. Bush does not have an ordinary job; Bush did not say "ordinary TV". Barrie Zwicker is a liar who's been caught red-handed (or red-tongued...).
i dont see why you are such a knit-picker on this subject, after all you think holograms hit the towers anyways so why does it matter?