Support 911Blogger


Chomsky revisits 9/11?

Chomsky: US-led Afghan war, criminal

Renowned Jewish-American scholar Noam Chomsky says US invasion of Afghanistan was illegal since to date there is no evidence that al-Qaeda has carried out the 9/11 attacks.

"The explicit and declared motive of the [Afghanistan] war was to compel the Taliban to turn over to the United States, the people who they accused of having been involved in World Trade Center and Pentagon terrorist acts. The Taliban…they requested evidence…and the Bush administration refused to provide any," the 81-year-old senior academic made the remarks on Press TV's program a Simple Question.

"We later discovered one of the reasons why they did not bring evidence: they did not have any."

The political analyst also said that nonexistence of such evidence was confirmed by FBI eight months later.

"The head of FBI, after the most intense international investigation in history, informed the press that the FBI believed that the plot may have been hatched in Afghanistan, but was probably implemented in the United Arab Emirates and Germany."

Chomsky added that three weeks into the war, "a British officer announced that the US and Britain would continue bombing, until the people of Afghanistan overthrew the Taliban... That was later turned into the official justification for the war."

"All of this was totally illegal. It was more, criminal," Chomsky said.

The 2001 US-led invasion of Afghanistan was launched with the official objective of curbing militancy and bringing peace and stability to the country.

Nine years on, however, the American and Afghan officials admit that the country remains unstable and civilians continue to pay the heaviest price.

ASH/MN/PKH/MMN

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/149520.html

mmmm... unbelievable!

Well folks time to get serious...the rats are jumping:-)

yes, but don't forget the spin factor

Yes, the rats are jumping........everywhere it seems. I agree with those here who say we should support his statement. But this is the same guy who when asked about the JFK assassination said "who cares?" If he doesn't spin this away from US culpability for 9/11, those who know, like and report on him will. Yes, it's good stuff for building an argument for ending these awful wars, which should always be paramount. But like John says, it's getting more serious by the day, which means we are becoming more vulnerable by the day because those who are bent on discrediting us will be pushing even harder. I have no firm opinions on how we should fine tune our strategy, but my gut tells me that an integral part of being a powerful voice is for us to face our internal conflicts head on and develop some consensus that unites all of us. It's always been the case, but even more so now we need to continually ask ourselves, "What do people see when they look at the 911 truth movement? Harmony or discord?"

Being reasonable is the key!

We must be reasonable even with our perceived enemies.

That being said if the facts don't speak for them selves the arguments are it not in the mix, period. We must be our own harshest critics and no one should be trusted or supported when they demonstrate recklessness.

If a political movement is to bring real change, these realizations that must be had.

Regards John

sounds good

So, then it would seem the definition of "reasonable" needs to be discussed and agreed upon. That's a huge nut simply considering the extreme opinion currently within the movement, not to mention the cointelpro factor. It seems daunting as to whether we could achieve that. Without an agreed definition of "reasonable," then any forthcoming actions that resemble "not in the mix" could justifiably be labeled "gatekeeping." Actually, I'm not 100% opposed to gatekeeping, as long as it's upfront, announced and clear about it's mission. There are some who call that credibility.

We've got lot's of work ahead, inside and out. Right now this discussion is happening one way or another within about 10% of the population. When it's five times as many people having these discussions, which has to happen if we are gonna win, then it's all gonna be 5 times harder and moving 5 times faster (and hopefully 5 times more rewarding too).

Everyone who likes rollercoasters move to the front of the line :-)

SATYAGRAHA

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-11-01/how-win-friends-and-influence-people

These types of approach's define reasonable! What's great is that if we all agree to embrace a peaceful non-partisan approach, we weed out the disinfo and the cynics who push it. When peaceful outreach is happening, the disrupters stand out as the fringe elements they are and can then be easily discredited and/or dismissed.

I just got this on e-mail seems like he's right?

I got this from a friend in an e-mail....

"Hi John. I’d be cautious with this report. Press TV states “Noam Chomsky says US invasion of Afghanistan was illegal since to date there is no evidence that al-Qaeda has carried out the 9/11 attacks.” But if you read his actual comments and watch the show, he doesn’t say that. He said they had no evidence at the time, which is what he’s been saying since the beginning. This is not new, or a change in his position. (Unfortunately, in my view).

Cheers,

John"

So maybe we should look into this a bit further and ask Noam for the latest evidence or if he thinks they now have any to support the invasion?

Kind regards John

The way that looks

is like a leftist intellectual opportunistically borrowing arguments from the 9/11 Truth community to further his own anti-war, anti-imperialist agenda.

I don't disagree with his agenda so much as I disagree with plagiarizing the work of a group of researchers Chomsky habitually refers to as a 'cult'.

And what if Al Qaeda was indeed involved with 9/11? Does that constitute a casus belli? No. 9/11 was a crime, not an act of war. If that was the case, then.. special forces should've gone in.. capture those responsible, and bring them to court (NOT military commissions).

Instead, we got a full scale, decades-lasting multi-theater war including long term post-victory occupation, permanent military bases, 'counter-insurgency' and transparent imperialist overtones.

The full picture makes abundantly clear that the Afghan war was about much more than 'bringing the terrorists to justice'.

Otherwise, they should have invaded Saudi Arabia instead.

Mr. Chomsky is being opportunistic here with OCT falsification, produced by the 9/11 Truth Movement. I'm not trying to be hostile to him, but it's not that difficult to see.

He should have gone a step further and ask whether the United States government, more than 'not proving' their case, were actively making sure they had an excuse for unilateral warfare in the first place. "Manipulated blowback" as Kevin Ryan calls it. Mr. Chomsky pretends not to know about the 'manipulated' part.

Example..

language critique

I assume we agree on the substance of your comment, so I hope this criticism doesn't offend. As I recently stated, the number of truth activists knowledgeable about nonviolence is trivial.

I urge anyone wanting to praise the decorum of truth sympathizers to avoid the term "peaceful." I advise the term "nonviolent." The civil rights activists associated with MLK Jr were generally nonviolent. When racists attacked them, the situation ceased to be peaceful. No need to blame the victim. Other than myself, I've never heard one person in my 60 years who makes this point.

Non-partisan usually means not of the 2 major US parties. I don't think you mean that. I think you mean fairminded.

I categorically object to our using the term disinfo. The term needs to be replaced with the term "misinfo." Misinfo means you don't claim the person isn't a dupe. Disinfo means that you feel the best way to criticize someone is to encourage others to hate them.

Of course there is disinfo and people paid to disrupt us. I am the founder of DC911Truth. The first thing I said at the first public event was," If I live to be 100 and I'm still an activist, there's nothing that will p**s them off more than this issue. I wouldn't mind the term "disinfo" if it wasn't used to generate mistrust between genuine activists.

The problem is that the vast (way over 90%) majority of truth sympathizers are too paranoid to be effective organizers. They don't take the next stage of action because they are afraid they are being monitored. WE ARE BEING MONITORED. If we can't press through such concern, WE DON'T DESERVE to live under freedom. The 911Truth movement is our best hope to prevent life in the US from becoming a situation where 99% of citizens soil their pants in fear EVERY DAY.

Act like it.

Sorry for my incompetence

I don't know how to erase one of the two identical comments I just posted.

Hey Dave

One way I do it is just editing my post to just show one letter to at least save space.

So in response to your critique of my choice of language, Satyagraha while being the title of my post was not the only point. Make sure you read the link I posted which gets into more detail the points I feel important here (also greater detail as do how I see Satyagraha applies to the context of 9/11 truth). The link also contains to phone calls to Alan Colmes which you might appreciate.

I get what you are saying about the semantics in regard to disinfo. However, if you are spreading Misinfo by your definition, then you are taking part in Disinfo and spreading Disinfo whether you like it or not. So in the context I used Disinfo, it is meant to define 'bad information which is detrimental to the discovery of the truth and spreading of the truth.' Misinfo and Disinfo both apply to this definition, though I see where the implied intention may be relative to the word choice for certain people.

You are right that a fair minded approach is critical to spreading the truth. As far as me saying that 9/11 Truth must take a non-partisan approach I stand by the statement. This movement requires no defined affiliation to either of the 2 main parties OR any other specific party. Satyagraha in this context applies because 9/11 Truth is simply a subject focused on getting to the truth of a particular event. The contrast to Satyagraha and also the dem vs repub stance would be if our movement focused on beating a particular side on a particular issue. 9/11 Truth is not something which requires any particular political worldview to study or understand. I'm happy to clarify that by non-partisan, I mean in order for us to appear "reasonable" to the general populace we must be able to cooperate beyond both dem and repub and any other political affiliation. The values behind 9/11 Truth speak across all political spectrums. The force of all truth speaks across political spectrums. This is where I feel if 9/11 Truth makes this Ghandi esc. approach our primary focus, we can easily find a comfortable, reasonable platform among our movement and in our spreading of the truth to those who do not yet understand it.

Kdub, would you consider calling me?

410-499-5403

Thanks

Re: double posts; Satyagraha

Dave, you can edit one of the posts to leave it blank -- so long as no one has replied to it. Once someone replies, we have no further editing control.

I appreciate your insights into Satyagraha.

Valid non-violence is surely a difficult discipline, taking remarkable bravery. Gandhi argues that real social change requires that approach. It involves voluntary acceptance of suffering. It strikes me that it generally requires a remarkable leader, such as Gandhi or King, for it to actually take place and keep happening. Most of us lack the stamina for it.

Satyagraha

Kudos to you for understanding Gandhi's call for suffering. Why suffer? To touch the heart of the adversary. The why is important.

In September of 2009 I gave the keynote speech at St Mark's Church in NY. Here's the link to the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHwnXaPh6g4

I called for civil disobedience against the left gatekeeper media. I noted that the vast majority of those who do NVCD reject Gandhi, but are at least polite. I sadly noted that my own movement, 911Truth has serious trouble being polite, much less Gandhian.

Currently I am seriously considering seeking face time with Cass Sunstein, with the intention of serving time in jail to touch his heart. I wouldn't be asking him to change his position. I'd just be asking him to agree to a videotaped discussion with me. It's important to me to minimize disruption and maximize sacrifice by those seeking justice.

The beauty of going to jail to touch Sunstein's heart is that it WON"T BE COVERED by left gatekeeper media, exposing their unwillingness to stand for their own principles.

Would really appreciate being able to talk with anyone interested in nonviolent resistance. Must say I'm judgmental about pseudonyms.

dslesinger@alum.mit.edu

yes, seems chomsky is revisiting 9/11. wondering. . .

. . . if barrie zwicker will revisit chomsky. see //www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhrZ57XxYJU

Casus Belli

Seems Chomsky is scrutinizing the casus belli for the Afghan War... I don't think he's a truther now, although he sounds like one..

Agreed

Let's give Mr. Chomsky the time and space to explain just how far his questioning of the events of 9/11 goes.

The truth shall set us free (clever rhetoric is just that).

Love is the only way forward (sometimes adversaries can be won over, but wariness and caution are definitely called for here).

I agree too. Chomsky's done a

I agree too. Chomsky's done a lot of good work. Let's keep the door open for him to jump on board the Truth Train. If he does, it'll place powerful pressure on the other left gate keepers to take another serious hard look at our best arguments and our best science.

Chomsky's (and our) wisdom

I would be happy if Chomsky imparted some of his wisdom on the 9/11 Truth Movement, and vice versa, because we have a lot to teach him on 9/11, but I don't think many of the things Chomsky would say would really match up to the expectations some 9/11 Truthers might have.

I'm interested, but I'm going to carefully wait and see.

Let's see if, and how soon, Mr. Chomsky

goes on Democracy Now and explains this to Amy Goodman (and her reaction), and why it took him this long to figure out that al Qaeda had no real role in the events of 9/11/01.

One question we all have to ask ourselves is how we are going to treat high profile people when they jump on the 9/11 truth bandwagon, not that this is what Mr. Chomsky is doing now.

We are the leaders we have been waiting for, brothers and sisters, let's not let any truth carpetbaggers cut to the head of the line and either slow us down or take us in the wrong direction.

Edit: I read Chomsky for over 20 years. In classic Chomsky style he is stating facts, but not providing any possible courses of action or solution. Will he join our call for a new, complete and transparent investigation? That is the next logical step, yes?

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Yes, a new and transparent investigation

but THEN WHAT???

And how are "we" going to make sure the "the right people" are going to conduct that new transparent investigation? And what happens when it turns out certain people are found guilty? Will we get to the masterminds that planned the attacks? If not, what good will this new investigation have?
And besides that, we can safely assume that some very very powerful and influencial people are involved in this. Of course, they're not gonna step down just like that, and be led to court and then to jail. Moreover, they'll probably go down dragging lot's of people and perhaps the planet with them.
So, in response to David's comments; I'm all for being and staying non-violent, but just how far are we willing to take this? Force, most probably deadly force WILL be used against "us", when these people sense that their position becomes in jeopardy. My guess is they will find excuses to use that type of force.
So my question would be:

Is the movement (as a whole) prepared to stay nonviolent, no matter what the circumstances are going to be?

I'm still amazed and what took place in India with Ghandi and the British, but that type of behavior is very very rare, and requires consciously sacrificing ur life on this planet, for some greater good. Not many people are capable of this I think.
My own general rule would be:

Try to avoid killing at all costs, but if someone want to kill you at all costs, then there's nothing wrong with killing that someone. It'll still be a tragedy though, but that's less important.

Curious about the reactions on this....

Chomsky questionning 9.11

That would be a great achievement because he is the major
lock for people from the left to start questioning 9.11, possibly
the critical damn after which the floodgates would be open.

I am not sure he is actually questioning the official story 9.11
since he repeated many times he does not agree with 9.11 truth.

A step in the right direction

Some in this thread are interpreting his comments as a rejection of any Al Qaeda involvement in 9/11. While it is very good to see these statements--which are quite a contrast to what he's said about 9/11 before (as noted in my comment from a previous thread that I've pasted below)--let's not get too euphoric and start attributing to him views which he hasn't clearly expressed. He has stated that there was no evidence for Bin Laden's culpability, and therefore no rationale for invading Afghanistan. He mentions instead the United Arab Emirates and Germany. We all know that the powers that be have no problem spinning 'Al Qaeda' as this multi-tentacled entity that doesn't stop at national boundaries. And we also know how stubbornly those who've held to a blowback interpretation of 9/11 can cling to them. Some hearing this might think: So they were wrong about Bin Laden; it could have been other Muslims who decided to turn on their US masters by murdering US civlilans (that's how 'blowbackers' tend to think).

Chomsky's remarks here are helpful. They can make it easier for us to dismantle the official story in the minds of more and more people who look to him as an authority. But let's not be mistaken to think that he has already accomplished that dismantling with these comments.

[What follows is my comment 'It IS better late than never,' pasted from a previous thread in response to this same item]:

It's true that he doesn't mention anything explicitly in support of 9/11 as having been an inside job. Still, just admitting the non-existence of evidence incriminating bin Laden for the attacks is quite significant--very different from what many in his audience are accustomed to hearing. It's a shame that there are many who are so dependent on such intellectuals in order to determine which topics and opinions are legitimate and which aren't. It's also true that we don't know how consistenly he will bring this (newly found?) awareness re bin Laden and 9/11 to bear on his future discussions on war and the Middle East. Is it just a momentary gesture?

Stil, that he would make such a statement after years of dismissing the 9/11 truth movement looks to me like another indication that all our efforts at sending out ripples through the public consciousness are bearing fruit.

I'm never going to see such gatekeeping intellectuals in the same light I once did; and I'm not suggesting that we start fawning over him in gratitude, 'Oh, thank you, thank you!' But neither do I think it makes much sense to bombard him with 'No sh*t Sherlock; what took you so long?!' kinds of messages. Just appreciate this for the positivie indication that it is--and remember it for any future occasions should you find yourself debating with someone who might be influenced by his views.

nice analysis of his position, rm

We should be cautious in our assessment of his position. Wait until he is more explicit in the rational position that it must have been an inside job. Nothing like a back-treading 'pundit' to close the case in the minds of many fence-sitters.

Well

Good for him. Its a start.

I do hope he finds harmony with the truth movement, but I dont deride him for only dipping his toes in. I like Noam.

This is indeed a big deal

I takes people time to find the truth. Chomsky has found one which he can back up as factually as his normal standard. Hopefully he keeps on this path to truth and begins to see what 9/11 Truth was trying to show him over the years. Let's embrace this with open arms.

I Have To Wonder What Noam Has Been Reading Lately

Hello Truthseekers & Truthtellers,
Could it be that Noam Chomsky has picked up a few of DRG's books or Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed's books, or maybe he finally read the "Terror Timeline" by Paul Thompson not to mention a few other great books out there like Barrie Zwicker's "Towers of Deception" or Michael Ruppert's "Crossing the Rubicon". Sorry if I left a some out, there are so many books that the mainstream media purposely forgot to mention, or to interview the authors of these books.
Take Care Matt

No speculation needed.....

Noam Chomsky has now gone on the public record by saying:

"We later discovered one of the reasons why they did not bring evidence: they did not have any"..... and the "nonexistence of such evidence was confirmed by FBI eight months later."

Chomsky has stated baldly that there is "no evidence that al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11". He is not saying who DID it, but he is certainly saying who DID NOT.

Since al Qaeda was likely *not responsible* for 9/11, because there is no evidence, then who was responsible? That is the next obvious follow up question for Chomsky, Goodman, Huffington, Corn, and the hordes of weasels and gatekeepers in both corporate and alternative media (on the left and the right) who, by crass intellectual cowardice, are actively preventing justice from being done and keeping the perpetrators safe from public scrutiny.

We need a new, wholly independent investigation/grand jury with full subpoena power and the power to indict. Anything less than that is mere opinion, with no legal teeth.

Why the name calling?

"hordes of weasels and gatekeepers in both corporate and alternative media (on the left and the right) who, by crass intellectual cowardice, are actively preventing justice from being done and keeping the perpetrators safe from public scrutiny."

I share your frustrations with how long it has taken some individuals in the left wing media to begin to cover 9/11 Truth. However, now that they are obviously warming up and willing to do so, lumping in name calling with valid questioning makes us appear childish and just as unapproachable (probably more considering it is in response to a left-wing rep who is expressing our side of things) as we have ever been. Name calling makes us look like the weasels. We can't "gatekeep" those who are just starting to open up to truth by not allowing them to make up for an error they have made in the past. I know we can be be skeptical of all individuals yet not attack them personally.

If we are dependent on high-profile people

to illuminate the truth, we are still a slave people - hooked into celebrities.

If peace and harmony can only reign when high-profile people grace us with their utterances - we are still in a mind set of powerlessness. And we are still vulnerable to manipulation via celebrity.

Who ever heard of William Rodriguez or David Chandler? But they carry more truth than a thousand Chomskys.

Still - it's nice that Mr. Chomsky is one more human being to realize that the OCT can't possibly be true.

Any scientists here that are

Any scientists here that are reading this, please contact the organization that comes down on bogus science.

ucs@ucsusa.org

Maybe we can make some more strides.

Show "You have to be kidding" by bofors

Bush science

Tobacco industry lobbyists, Tea Partiers, oil industry stooges... They know what bogus science is, and we should trust them.

zmzmzm

But you have to admit, this fellow sure has credibility with the left. We here don't depend on his utterances, but lots of others do.

It is similar to having a good ad on TV in favor of 9-11 truth-seeking. We here don't need it, but lots of others do.

Must we?

I find the labeling of Prof. Chomsky as a "Jewish-American," scholar offensive.

Is David Ray Griffin labeled a Lutheran (?) American scholar? Is anyone else identified by their religion-hyphen-American label???

No.

So why Chomsky?

I, for one, am thrilled that Jewish-American scholar Chomsky has made this statement. He is among the bravest counter-establishment voices for 50 years or more. Thank God for Jewish Americans.

Joe (Catholic-Italian-American)

...

I also thought it bizarre to mention his religion, and in the subtitle to the piece too, as though it is key somehow. Does he mention his religion? I don't recall him speaking about it.

David Ray Griffin is a Christian-American Scholar. (Methodist)

David Ray Griffin is a Christian-American Scholar. (Methodist)

Chomsky on 911 Truth and JFK Cults

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q00muqmkQW0

Noam is totally unimpressive to me...

It's interesting how he says that 9/11 and JFK keep people away from the more important topics, but fails to mention what those more important subjects are.

Exactly! So you claim to be a pacifist and you don't want

to discuss JFK and 911 ? The direct implications of which resulted in massive deaths and now perpetual war! Is it really any wonder the peace movement has failed?

Presstv.ir

From their website:

Press TV takes revolutionary steps as the first Iranian international news network, broadcasting in English on a round-the-clock basis.

Our global Tehran-based headquarters is staffed with outstanding Iranian and foreign media professionals.

Press TV is extensively networked with bureaus located in the world's most strategic cities.

For a "Jewish-American" scholar to make these statements is a very big deal to many Iranians, so that is undoubtedly why they identified him as such.

Let's not make to big a deal out of this. Remember, they do not have the same sense of political correctness that has infected the U.S. and many western countries.

[Please note that I do not think that everything that can be labeled "political correctness" is necessarily negative, this is just the reality we live in.]

The truth shall set us free (every person and culture has their own path to truth).

Love is the only way forward (part of love is understanding).

Offensive, why?

If Chomsky is proud of being jewish, why would it ever be offensive to him? Why even make a point out of this?

The lack of evidence means what exactly

that you don't believe the fake bin laden tapes or the tortured confessions? We'll just have to wait and see if he wades out into the truth stream any further. A couple of baby steps is a start but I am still not ready to buy his books again. It's not like he doesn't know the story, he has made comments like it doesn't matter and I am not an engineer etc in the past.

Please Join Me

in requesting an interview of Chomsky on Democracy Now following up on the article at
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/149520.html

mail@democracynow.org

Benefit

Neither Chomsky nor Goodman are 9/11 truthers, because neither Chomsky nor Goodman like the 9/11 truth movement. I fail to see the benefit of such an interview, although I understand there might be some optimism among the left about some of the recent developments.

Chomsky interviewed by 9/11 Family Members, now that's something I'm looking for. I would like to see Chomsky try to refer to them as a 'cult'. Or claim that 9/11 is 'irrelevant'.

I admire Chomsky about many things, 9/11 is just not one of them. Like John (LeftWright) says, we are our own leaders.

Voted you up for optimism.

I think that when Chomsky

I think that when Chomsky speaks people listen so this is awesome news for all of us. I figured he would come around at some point. On a side note I've added my personal info to my account page, I hope that that becomes a real trend, because transparency is a big part of our movement and helps to insulate us from disruptive people who are unaccountable.

Transparency Good, Anonymous Not So Good!

Transparency Good, Anonymous Not So Good. Very well said Vulich. I'll check out your profile.

George Washington of Washington's Blog cover this...

Noam Chomsky: No Evidence that Al-Qaeda Carried Out the 9/11 Attacks
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/11/chomsky-no-evidence-that-al-qaeda...

Liberal?

George may want to reconsider his terminology. Chomsky would be deeply offended at being described as a "liberal". In fact he considers (modern) liberalism to be the main impediment to achieving a just society. Noam's an anarchist, and he ain't shy about it.

Edit -- I notice that Washington also refers to Howard Zinn and William Blum in the same manner. Zinn was an anarchist and Blum a democratic socialist with anarchist leanings. Referring to them as liberals is about as correct as George Bush being described as a conservative.

the case for unlawful war is obvious to anyone..

.. who cares to read the one law that determines lawful and unlawful war: the UN Charter.

After two world wars, the US led the creation of a treaty to end war as a foreign policy option outside a narrow legal definition of self defense.

If you know of a better article to explain why the US wars are "emperor has no clothes" obviously unlawful than the following, please speak-up: "US war laws explained, why Afghanistan and Iraq wars are unlawful, how to end them"

It's here: http://www.examiner.com/la-county-nonpartisan-in-los-angeles/us-war-laws...

Reality check

I'm a great admirer of Chomsky's non-911 related work. I would especially recommend "Chomsky on Anarchism", "Understanding Power" and "Government in the future".

That said, he has a habit of running away from the really controversial so-called "conspiracy theories" like a frightened rabbit from a shotgun. It's sort of understandable considering that he's been smeared as a "conspiracy theorist" on countless occasions just for documenting patterns in media reportage.

Perhaps the above is an unfair over-generalization since he has discussed the MLK assassination, CIA drug running, COINTELPRO and other highly conspiratorial and controversial affairs, but when it comes to the really, REALLY controversial stuff -- JFK and 911 being the two best examples -- he is way beyond cautious; he is dismissive and irrational.

Again, I can sort of understand where he's coming from in terms of not wanting to lose credibility, but it's an unfortunate blot in an otherwise brilliant body of work.

Regarding his latest comments -- they are indeed a step in the right direction and a refreshing change from the usual blowback stuff, but if anyone's expecting him to declare that 911 was an inside job or even that elements of the gov were complicit, they will be sorely disappointed.

In fact, he said basically the same thing a few years ago on the Charlie Rose program, though he qualified his remarks at that time by saying something like "I do believe Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were responsible" (despite the failure to provide evidence to the Taliban). I suppose the fact that he didn't feel it necessary to add that caveat in this interview could be interpreted as a softening of his position.

I agree with Snowcrash, LeftWright and others that we're far beyond the point of needing the endorsement of Chomsky. We have the endorsement of Leonid Ivashov for Pete's sake.

Having said all that, if people think Chomsky is finally ready to state the obvious I would suggest sending him some emails. It is quite possible that he is not privy to many of the recent revelations, and he's actually very gracious in responding to queries. Just be prepared for a let down.

In my opinion

the greatest flaw in Noam Chomsky's thinking is the categorical exclusion of the modifier "manipulated" next to the noun "blowback".

i'm no chomsky fan. . .

. . . given his moronic if not insane "who cares?" about jfk and 9/11. however, i would welcome his belated endorsement of 9/11 truth (tho like you i don't think that endorsement will ever happen). there are many chomsky admirers hooked into the mainstream alternative media (e.g., amy goodman's "democracy now") who follow his lead. winning these people over would be a tremendous plus, in my view, and break thru the gatekeeper left. i don't think leonid ivashov has near the following of chomsky. tho i've been into 9/11 truth for a couple of years now, i had to google ivashov to find out (remember?) who he was. interesting story on ivashov here //www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1788 where it is reported that the corporate media pretty much ignores his 9/11 views...akin to how the corporate media is currently ignoring chomsky's "revisit of 9/11."

Lots of Play on Reddit... #1 Story on World News

Renowned scholar Noam Chomsky says U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was illegal since to date there is no evidence that al-Qaeda has carried out the 9/11 attacks.
http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/e1ru5/renowned_scholar_noam_c...

Very cool Orang

If I'm wrong I'll eat my hat.

But as always I am in awe of the activists on this website.

The failure of IMAGINATION

Maybe Mr Chomsky has finally actually READ the Commission report ? If he has half the brains everybody sais he has, that's all it would take.

Moreover, If Chomsky

has ever bothered to acquaint himself with some of the basic facts about the behavior of the US Govt. on 911, surely he must've felt immediately that there's something very wrong about this story. 411 days until the official investigation got started, an investigation which Bush/Cheney didn't even want, but was only granted after the great work of the Jersey Girls, destruction of almost all of the physical evidence even though these were unprecedented buildingfailures, wanting to appoint Henry Kissinger at first as head of the Commission, holding back of other evidence, in other words, a complete stonewalling of the entire investigation. He knows what this type of behavior indicates, I think he knows it very well.
Thing is, once people, in the face of all the available facts, choose to deny those facts and to stick to what the US Govt. has told them, there often is no turning back. I think that has to do with pride, not wanting to admit that u've been wrong (and have been very stupid to have been fooled all that time). In Noam's case, it's his credibilty. But in my view he just undermines his own credibility by not even wanting to consider 911 an inside job.

I believe that when Noam sits down with the Jersey Girls, someone like a Kevin Ryan, a Stephen Jones, or a Luke Rudowski, Jon Gold, or some of the people participating here, he would surely have no choice but to admit that the Truthmovement has a very strong case indeed, and that the govt.'s account is patently false.

But as I said before, where do we go from here? What will happen if we get this new investigation? What will happen in court? How do we get to the people behind all this? They want go down without a massive resistance.
Like Luke Rudowski once said: "If you wanna get rid of all these webs, you have to kill the spider". Or in the case of staying nonviolent all the way, "we have to let us get eaten by the spider until he's had enough of us, and throws in the towel.

The whole road ahead to peace must be clear, we can't just say or think "Once we get this investigation, justice will be done". This is a global issue, and frankly, I'm having a hard time figuring how to get these psychopathic people who are responsible for all this misery away from their current position, and into jail. Hell, we'll have to identify them first.

lol

i love how people wre full of understanding for chomsky. he's a great thinker but he needs 9+ years
to figure out that 9/11 did not happen the way we were told it did. imo, no understanding for chomsky.
he has lied once about 9/11 and he will do it again.

The video

Hi everyone,

For my article on the subject for the French website Oumma.com, I found and isolated the video sequence of his declaration broadcasted by Press Tv.

Take a look :

blank video

Does anyone know why the shot of the video in the above post on my computer is blank? Is anyone else having the same trouble?

Works for me

Sent you a mail with some help info.