By Noam Chomsky
May 7, 2011
We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic.
It's increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law. There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition - except, they claim, from his wife, who lunged towards them. In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress "suspects." In April 2002, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the FBI could say no more than that it "believed" that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, though implemented in the UAE and Germany. What they only believed in April 2002, they obviously didn't know 8 months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know, because they were instantly dismissed) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence - which, as we soon learned, Washington didn't have. Thus Obama was simply lying when he said, in his White House statement, that "we quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda."
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.
I found this video of an interview with Noam Chomsky from over a year ago.
WE ARE A CULT.
Anyone still thinking Noam Chomsky is not a fraud?
This Interview is from April 24, 2009
Link to Video
"This multiple awards winning documentary is a well-executed and comprehensive film that asks tough questions and goes behind the scenes of America’s national security apparatus and military actions. Far from a conspiracy film about the dangers of government secrets and regime change, this well-balanced film straddles the philosophical divide and allows viewers to understand the US quest for global dominance through economic and military strategy that is exposed through review of historical events, personal interviews, and analysis of US foreign policy."
"The United States emerged from World War II with its industrial base still intact and the only nation with the atomic bomb. It was without question the most powerful country on earth. What was done with this unprecedented power, the effects it's had on our Republic and the rest of the world is the story of Superpower."
Chomsky Confronted on 9/11; Admits LIHOP is "conceivable"
The Corbett Report
5 November, 2009
A 9/11 activist recently confronted Noam Chomsky on his previous, well-publicized disparaging+remarks+about+9/11+truth. After spending several minutes repeating his tired arguments about the impossibility of 9/11 as an inside job, Chomsky then concedes that the notion that the Bush Administration knew of an impending attack and let it happen on purpose is "conceivable." Watch footage of the confrontation in the video player below:
This took place in November 2006. I have decided to gather our correspondence and place it into one page. It was originally posted here. Peter Dale Scott told me he enjoyed this at the time.
Mr. Chomsky, this is a challenge I sent to the media.
"A Challenge To The Media"
What would be your argument against this?
If the last question is addressed to me, I don't have any argument against providing even more attention to the Truth Movement.
Do you endorse the family members' call for a new investigation?
I don't endorse it or object to it. In my opinion there are far more significant topics, but we have to use our own judgments.
Chomsky Says President Obama Continues Bush Policy To Control Middle East Oil
by Sherwood Ross
Noam Chomsky spoke at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London Oct. 27th.
Academic activist Chomsky is known to the 911 Truth Movement as a denier of the facts of controlled demolition of the three WTC buildings, in spite of the massive amount of irrefutable evidence (most of us see it as ordinary common sense backed up by hard core science).
As I recall, Chomsky also insisted, as many deniers do, that any conspiracy would have to be too large, that too many people would have to be involved, for it to have occurred. Then he dismissed his challengers with a wave of the hand and said, "What does it matter?"
I suspect that when Chomsky did this, he knew his arguments couldn't stand up, but he couldn't admit his mistake or the fact that he had been deceived, so he resorted to outright denial and a pretense of apathy; I also believe he still can't admit that he was wrong but probably knows it deep inside.
Now here we have Chomsky giving a speech in which he describes the war in Iraq as
This week's Diet Soap podcast features the second part of a conversation with Peter Dale Scott about his book "The Road to 9/11." Peter also discusses his views on the pros and cons of Noam Chomsky, his admiration and impatience with anarchism and other revolutionary strategies for social change, and the necessary difficulties involved with attempts to understand deep politics. Phil Och's song "Love Me I'm Liberal" along with a factoid on the Titanic are also featured.
The Corbett Report has just released a two-part documentary as a rebuttal to Chomsky's infamous 9/11 comments. These videos seek to expose the nonsensical and contradictory arguments Chomsky makes in trying to discredit 9/11 Truth. The documentary is intended to be an activist tool for spreading 9/11 Truth to academics, leftists and Chomskyites. If you think it is well-presented, please help get the word out by sending the link to people you think it might wake up.
Due to a date error on the Corbett Report video posted yesterday, the blog entry has been removed. Corbett is re-editing the video to correct the error which placed some comments by Chomsky prior to the publication of "Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction", by 10 days.
Until Corbett reposts, here is a piece produced by Snowshoe Films:
"THE SHAME OF NOAM CHOMSKY & LEFT GATEKEEPERS": featuring Barrie Zwicker;
February 14, 2007 -- Noam Chomsky has signed a petition written by the 9/11 “Jersey” widows calling for the release of classified documents relating to the 9/11 attacks. The Muckraker Report has contacted him by e-mail and verified that the individual listed on the petition is indeed Noam Chomsky. Chomsky’s name is #6432:
That said, now that Chomsky has agreed to sign the widows’ petition, the Muckraker Report would like to see the following people sign too: Alexander Cockburn and crew at Counterpunch, the editorial staff at the Nation, Michael Moore, Barbara Ehrenreich, Amy Goodman, Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, Seymour Hersh, Nicholas Leman at the New Yorker, Christopher Hayes, anyone who writes for the Daily Kos, including Kos himself, and the absolutely divine Camille Paglia.
Like I said in my article from a few days ago, 9/11 Widows Keep on Asking the Tough Questions, the Jersey widows say that once they have 15,000 signatures on their petition, they’re going to head back to Capitol Hill. Right now they have 6,600 signatures, 1023 of them in the last 60 hours. Please e-mail the link of the petition to all your friends. Ask them to sign and forward the petition to their e-mail contacts. The Jersey widows have to get 8,400 more signatures. They need your help. Come on - give them a hand!
“Whether [Islamic terrorists] were involved or not nobody knows. It really doesn’t matter much.” (“An Evening with Noam Chomsky: The War on Terror.” MIT 10/18/2001)
“The evidence (against al-Qaida) is surprisingly thin.” (Noam Chomsky, 9/11)
“Even if (inside job) were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? I mean, it doesn’t have any significance.”
(Noam Chomsky on 911 conspiracy part 2, YouTube.)
Does it matter whether 9/11 was an inside job? Chomsky says no. Is his position in any way defensible or excusable? E.M. writes:
"Using Chomsky's logic, where my father does not have to accept a 'conspiracy theory' he admitted that the US is acting like an 'empire' and the war is 'probably criminal.'
Defending the Indefensible: Noam Chomsky's 9/11 Spin
Noam Chomsky's 2006 "analysis" of US government 9/11 complicity is being promoted by Alternet.org as if it was news. That's because Chomsky basically sides with the editors there and their dismissive attitudes toward looking at the evidence.
In this battle of ideas, it warms my heart that Alternet's boards are swamped with controversy the minute they try to push this garbage onto the unsuspecting.
I remain a bit dazed though that hard core "leftists" accept Chomsky's thin dismissal, and ignore the most important admission Chomsky has made:
"I mean even if it [US GOVERNMENT COMPLICITY IN THE 9/11 ATTACKS] were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? I mean it doesn't have any significance." -Noam Chomsky
Fragments on 9-11 Truth, Justice and Peace from a ‘Young’ Jewish Intellectual: Part 1- "Breaking the Silence Barrier"
"My column will include voices so often excluded, people whose views the media mostly ignore, issues they distort and even ridicule."— Amy Goodman from her first piece for her weekly column "Breaking the Sound Barrier"
“Of course, there will be those who demand silent obedience. We expect that from the ultra-right, and anyone with a little familiarity with history will expect it from some left intellectuals as well, perhaps in an even more virulent form. But it is important not to be intimidated by hysterical ranting and lies and to keep as closely as one can to the course of truth and honesty and concern for the human consequences of what one does, or fails to do. All truisms, but worth bearing in mind. Beyond the truisms, we turn to specific questions, for inquiry and for action.”—Noam Chomsky from the last page in his pamphlet “9-11”
by Tom Breidenbach
“It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear.”
—General Douglas MacArthur, 15 May 1951
“There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.”
“…which is just gonna leave a lot of things unexplained, I mean that’s the way the world is.”
Noam Chomsky has bridled at the idea that 9/11 could have been to any significant degree the result of a state-level conspiracy, expressing his irritation at a recent presentation where he held forth for several minutes on the topic. Chomsky is a figure worthy in certain respects of the esteem accorded him, but his views on 9/11 reflect a common and dangerous mis-appraisal of the techniques of contemporary statecraft and, more shockingly (coming from him), of the long-worsening psychosis afflicting and increasingly characterizing the US military/industrial complex. The point made by Chomsky during his talk that 9/11 was a boon for authoritarian governments the world over is well-taken (if hardly original), yet beyond this his opinions regarding the attacks range from foolish to insidious.
Listed in the Arts and Humanities Citation Index (1992) as the most often-cited living author of the 1980s, Chomsky was recently touted on the floor of the UN’s General Assembly by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and, in another indication of his singular cultural status, has been referred to by international pop star Bono as a “rebel without a pause, the Elvis of academia.” Considering his academic and popular reputation, and his generally laudable contributions to letters historically, Chomsky’s irked condescension on the matter of 9/11 is especially perilous, given that—in light of critical studies by (among others) David Ray Griffin and Nafeez Ahmed—the psychosis of US state militarism appears to have manifested to a very real and criminal degree in Anglo-American state sponsorship of the September 11th 2001 attacks.
911 and the Propaganda Model
The need to deter democracy by alienating public opinion from public policy, is one that has been long understood. Back in 1921, the highly influential political columnist and media analyst Walter Lippmann, wrote the book “Public Opinion”,where he discussed the need for the “manufacture of consent”; given the inherent pitfalls and barriers to an accurate and effective public opinion (democracy, essentially), it is necessary that this opinion is crafted by a higher sphere of influence. This was understood very well by Edward Bernays, who was the founder of Public Relations (he indeed coined the term), and the formulator of not just corporate, but also political PR. He sketches out his views on this in his 1928 work, "Propaganda where he states that “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society”, suggesting like Lippmann, that democracy is a “chaos” that needs regulation from above. This “above” is a small section of elites: “We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.” These are the people who will ensure that the masses are sedated, and free to run their daily lives, without participating in the broader picture of public policy, given the dangers that this would pose to the influence of said elites, and thus the smooth functioning of society. To paraphrase Bernays, a leader must serve by leading, not lead by serving.
One of the most 'controversial' chapters to appear in any 9/11 book, was written by Barrie Zwicker in his 'Towers of Deception'. This 'controversial' but true, accurate and highly education chapter has found its way onto the internet, and has been reproduced as far as I can see word for word and illustration for illustration. So if you would like to analyze the methods of propaganda, and dissect through the obfuscation here are the links:
Here are two reviews of the book from Amazon.com, which particularly mention this specific chapter as forming the basis of opinion concerning the book, and the review written about it:
The first reader gives the book 2 Starts out of 5 (2/5):
I gave the book two stars mainly because Zwicker's treatment of Noam Chomsky, with its continual oscillation between fawning adulation and vituperative disgust, is worth a read.
The second reder gives the book 5 Starts out of 5 (5/5):
I recently dug up an episode of one of my favoutrite Canadian alternative radio shows, Elephant Talk, which is broadcast from CHLY 101.7 in Nanaimo, British Columbia.
Progressive Canadian journalist Barrie Zwicker was the guest, discussing his new book Towers of Deception, The Media Cover-Up of 9/11.
One of the hosts of the show, James Booker, asked the award-winning journalist and university professor about something that had been on my mind for months, ever since I read Noam Chomsky’s uncharacteristicly emotional and logically stunted arguments against the hypothesis that 9/11 was a covert operation perpetrated by criminal elements of the US government.
Visit indoctriNATION to listen to Barrie Zwicker on Elephant Talk
The following is a transcription of part of their conversation (from 14:56 to 21:27):
Noam Chomsky, "the great intellectual", has in a PBS interview once again embraced his supposed worst enemy's favourite war-justifying psychological weapon, that being the "Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory".
It stands in stark contrast to 9/11 widow Patty Casazza's earlier PBS interview, in which she mentions WTC 7, the continued need for an impartial investigation, as well as the Henry Kissinger meeting, the loss of civil rights and other things of real importance. Things of real importance which are dismissed as "non-issues" and "distractions" by "the great intellectual" Mr Chomsky.
To listen to Chomsky’s interview click here.
To listen to Patty Casazza's click here.
Chomsky's disappointing and perplexing support for the NIST 9/11 conclusions does nothing to undermine the 9/11 truth movement or its findings. Scientific debate entitles Chomsky to whatever opinion he chooses. The truth movement has no reason to despair over this as long as it continues to focus on the science of 9/11.
Chomsky argues against a US false flag operation on two counts: 1) the scale of the operation and the high probability of a leak would render it too risky; and 2) lack of scientific evidence supporting an alternative theory.
Neither of these arguments is credible or defensible. Chomsky devoted much of his career to cataloging a century of US global terror conducted on a far grander scale than 9/11. Is he now proposing that these covert operations are limited only to foreign targets due to unstoppable domestic whistleblowers? On the face of it, this is absurd. Covert operations of this magnitude and gravity operate by different laws. Leaking information would be suicidal.
But let’s assume Chomsky is correct. If so, is the US unique in producing whistleblowers willing to risk their lives to expose Uncle Sam’s dark side? Does the same argument apply to Hussein, or Hitler, or Stalin, or Pinochet, or Pol Pot? Shall we also draw a line through their domestic atrocities as too implausible due to home grown whistleblowers? Furthermore, what shall we make of the released Northwoods documents revealing false flag plans against American citizens by the US military in the early ‘60s?
At about 3:50 of this video, Noam says "Even if it's true, who cares? It doesn't make any significance" when he is talking about the 9/11 "conspiracy theories".
I bet the 3,000 family members cares? I bet they feel its of significance?
Dear professor Chomsky,
you recently said in an interview that "the concept of 'false flag operation' is not a very serious one".
Apparently, then, you don't consider it "serious" that the Soviet artillery in 1939 fired the famous Mainila shots into their own territory, blamed them on the Finns and used them as a pretext to start the Winter War against Finland. Historians have for long known that this was a false-flag operation. But you don't regard it as "serious". Why not? Don't you think its consequences -- 23,000 dead Finns and 127,000 dead Russians -- were indeed serious?
Recently declassified documents show that the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which provided the legitimation for the Vietnam War, was fictional. Don't you think that 50,000 dead Americans and millions of dead Vietnamese is "serious"?
What about the fact that Italian terrorism trials revealed operation Gladio, a Cold War project based on a "strategy of tension" in which NATO's stay-behind armies and Western intelligence agencies promoted and assisted right-wing terrorist groups, whose attacks, killing hundreds of people in several countries, were blamed on the political left? Should you not know about this, read, e.g., historian Daniele Ganser's book "NATO's Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe" (2005) or watch the following BBC documents:
Noam Chomsky: "...One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis."
Chomsky doesn't believe that 9/11 represents "real and ongoing crimes of state." However, he never bothers to describe even one "real and ongoing crimes of state" in this exchange.
Chomsky Dismisses 911 Conspiracy Theories As 'Dubious'
The following is an exchange between a ZNet Sustainer and Noam Chomsky, which took place in the Sustainer Web Board where Noam hosts a forum...
ZNet Sustainer: Dear Noam, There is much documentation observed and uncovered by the 911 families themselves suggesting a criminal conspiracy within the Bush Administration to cover-up the 9/11 attacks (see DVD, 9/11: Press for Truth). Additionally, much evidence has been put forward to question the official version of events. This has come in part from Paul Thompson, an activist who has creatively established the 9/11 Timeline, a free 9/11 investigative database for activist researchers, which now, according to The Village Voice's James Ridgeway, rivals the 9/11 Commission's report in accuracy and lucidity (see,
I urge everyone to drop a truth bomb on this guy's left-gatekeerping ponkass, here's his mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Dear Noam Chomsky,
You proclaim that to challenge the assassinations of JFK, MLK and RFK as being anything other than as officially described would be the "Death of the Left". No, sir people you are becoming the "Death of the Left", because you and the other foundation funded "Leaders" have been politically castrating the political Left. And all with the anaesthetic of half-truths and micro revelations that steam valve just how corrupt things are. So the “Death of the Left” will be the slow political impotency that no longer inspires new generations to challenge the things that need challenging the most, “politically correct” or not. Above all though your constant dismissal of the 9/11 issue is frankly vomit inducing. There are credible, valid and rational reasons to doubt the official narrative describing that attack, yet you plead ignorance and show distain for such a critical subject, why? Beucase of this enigmatic stance of yours I actually now sympathise with those who would call you a gutless, visionless charlatan and coward.