real reasons behind Iraq War
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
Iraq Opens Oil Fields To Global Bidding 60% Increase In Output Sought By Sudarsan Raghavan and Steven Mufson
I was surprised to see this article (with some of its details and comments) in a MSM newspaper today.
Americans are not only being "softened up" for a war or conflict with Iran . . . I think the beneficial byproduct of this and many of the lies of the last 7 years (the entire century+ ?) finally being exposed, with more and more Americans' acceptance of them, is that Americans are also now getting primed for the true story behind 9/11 . . .
If we could "sacrifice" 4,200 troops for oil and 1.2 million Iraqis for oil, could we - I'd rather say "they" - not "sacrifice" 3,000 American citizens?
(We can see how the numbers were minimized that day. If the group behind 9/11 wanted maximum numbers killed that day, the timing of the events would have been later in the day . . . We can see a "humane" aspect to this attack . . . )