I wrote:
Dear Noam,

Recently I stumbled upon a transcript of something
you'd written on a Znet forum and I thought I'd ask
for clarification. You wrote:

"The concept of a 'false flag operation' is not a very
serious one, in my opinion."

I wonder why you would sa that. For instance, are you
suggesting that the Gleiwitz incident didn't happen or
that it wasn't important?

I should divulge that I find the evidence for US
complicity in 9/11 compellng. Specifically it seems
to me that the current administration had foreknowlege
of the September 11th attacks and were criminally
negligent at best and may have facilitated the attack.
You were discussing this issue when you claimed that
the very concept of a false flag attack wasn't
serious, but I'm not asking you about that subject
now. I'm just curious about your more general view
that 'false flag opearations' don't happen or aren't
serious.

Chomsky responded:

Border provocations are constant, all through US history for example. It's been a constant of US-Israeli policy for years, including the 1982 Lebanon war. But what is being suggested here is radically different, so much so that there is not even a remote historical analogue. Which is what I wrote.

Noam

I responded:

What is being suggested regarding 9/11 is different
depending on who you ask. My suggestion would be that
the current administration knew about the impending
attacks and allowed them to occur because they judged
such attacks to be politically useful. Others, such
as David Ray Griffin, would suggest that the current
administration made the attacks happen on purpose.
There is a rather large difference between these
positions technically, perhaps far less so when
considered as a matter of ethics. However, it appears
to me that there are, in fact, parallel historical
examples for even David Ray Griffin's accusation.

Operation Gladio involved staging terrorist attacks
and did not involve a border dispute. The Lavon
Affair likewise involved staged terrorist attacks.
More recently, in 1999, the Russian Apartment bombings
appear to have been staged in order to lead the
country into the Second Chechen War.

Could you clarify what particular quality of my
suggestion of US complicity or David Ray Griffin's
stronger position is without an historical analogue?
There are ample examples of staged terrorist attacks
used to justify state agression, also border
provocations and so on. Is it the scale of the WTC
bombings that pushes David Ray Griffin's suggestion
into the realm of the ahistorical? Or is there some
other reason for your dismissal of the entire notion
of "false flag" terrorism as unserious?

Update:

US complicity is possible, though there is no known historical analogue, surely not the ones you cite. No one has, to my knowledge, suggested a way to evaluate this proposal.

NC

Noam,

I find it nearly impossible to respond to your comments as they approach meaninglessness. That you do not mean what you write is clear.

You originally stated that "false flag terrorism" is not a serious concept which you can not possibly mean. Now you've stated that 1. US complicity is possible. 2. There is no historical analogue for such a possiblity. 3. This proposal is impossible to evaluate.

Your first statement I agree with, US complicity is possible. Your second statement, that such a possiblity would be without any historical analogue, in no way relates to the facts, but benefits from its concision. You're merely affirming the religious view of 9/11. Finally your third statement is gibberish. As I have no idea what proposal you're referring to I can't be sure whether anyone has offered up a way to evaluate it. If the proposal is that the US was complicit then you've certainly not given me any reason to believe special tools of evaluation would be required.

You stated that the historical examples of false flag terrorism that I provided are in no way analogous to what might have occured on 9/11, but failed to point to any reason behind this assertion. I suggested one possible reason to reject comparisons would be the differences in scale, but you did not confirm that this was the basis of your claim that US complicity would be hisorically unique.

I've attempted here to disentangle some intended line of argument, but unless you can clarify your position I'm no longer going to make the effort, and I don't see any reason why anyone else should engage you on this issue either. Since you evidently do not take your own position on this subject seriously, there is no reason for anyone else to do so. The fair and sensible reaction is to treat all of this as some aberration, and to focus on the important work that you've done in the past.