Noam Chomsky is BACK IN PLAY

All of you who had issues with the legitimacy of Chomsky because he didn't question 9/11, you may want to reconsider your stance.

"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."

He may not be espousing stories of explosives or energy weapons just yet, but he has now said what he needed to say to be removed from the "shill" list.


www.presstv.ir...

www.zerohedge.com...

I did read the link to his full quote you provided. I don't think it's fair to say most 911 official doubters consider Chomsky a "shill" -- he is extremely critical of the American Imperium, true, but he kind of lives in an Ivory Tower, where theory trumps reality. Look at his ideas about the JFK assassination, rather naive.

Chomsky's mistake comes from his Academic blindness. He believes, like most mainstream academics, that history is an inexorable process, that there is no such thing as truth or morality or meaning (deconstructionism), that everything is scientifically reducible. That no individual can change history.

Which is a stupid idea, given that they believe the official story of Oswald as lone nut. And even more contradictorily ignorant, if you consider that yes, a handful of insiders with the right technology and authority could bring down planes or drive them into the towers, to benefit insiders and destroy civil liberties and usher in a new era of terror and obedience.

I liked his old books. After you read them you have a different view of the USA completely. I wonder if he will write a new one about Obama.

Of course they don't have proof, otherwise they would have produced it. The government or better yet, the Bush administration capitalized on the emotions of a public under attack to point the finger at their political or business enemy.

When we were threatening the Taliban to hand Bin Laden over, the Taliban wasn't outright refusing. Instead, they were simply demanding proof, just what any other country would do before handing someone over. In fact, many countries wouldn't hand him over to the US in the first place, as many countries don't extradite people to countries where they can or will face the death penalty. The Taliban, at least from what I remember and from what is being reported here, only insisted that the US provide any kind of proof that it was Bin Laden who committed those attacks. Bin Laden himself was denying that he had anything to do with the attacks, an unprecedented move in "terror history", if in fact he is/was guilty. Besides, the Taliban couldn't hand Bin Laden in if they wanted to, as they didn't have the power or strength to do so.

Whatever the case, it appears as if the government never really had evidence of Al Qaeda's involvement in the attacks, though most of the public would think otherwise, due to the media's role, as well as the government itself. Al Qaeda's guilt was basically burned into our psychy from the first week, as our government and their media wing relied on our emotions to instill that notion in us.

The government basically asked us to "trust them", without providing any proof or evidence. Yes, the same government who has repeatedly lied since, with everything from the bailouts, Iraq War, anthrax, the climate, our economy, warrantless wiretapping and the so-called "health care reform". They have repeatedly lied to us before 9/11 as well, with everything from the Gulf of Tonking, USS Liberty and Watergate (just to name a few). Can we honestly say that we can trust this government, or elements within it?

As the years went on, mysterious evidence was found in caves, WTC rubble or the government's word of mouth from captives that the people are not given access to. Need I really mention that all of this evidence is dubious at best and basically all of it pretty much relies on us to trust them again? This is not even mentioning the evidence that the government has seemingly kept from us, such as raw-video (Pentagon), witness testimony (Sibel Edmonds and others), the flight recorders and the mountain of evidence that was shipped off-shore following the attacks.

So, what we have here, is that the government has not provided adequate proof that Al Qaeda is responsible and the little evidence that they have provided, is dubious at best. Any evidence that could be solid evidence, has been kept from the American people and the people of the world. It all boils down to whether you can trust what government is telling you or not, and even a lot of what they are asking us to trust them on would require us to ignore common since or evidence that has actually leaked out. Instead, they played primarily on the people's emotions directly after the attack to ensure that guilt is pinned on who they want it to be pinned on.

Just this in of itself is evidence that the government has something to hide and if they have something to hide, one has to ask, "why?"



--airspoon

"Instead, they were simply demanding proof, just what any other country would do before handing someone over. In fact, many countries wouldn't hand him over to the US in the first place, as many countries don't extradite people to countries where they can or will face the death penalty."

Not only the death penalty but torture as well. Nice to see the USA isn't a barbaric country and has wonderful laws to protect the innocent from power obsessed scum.


"The Taliban, at least from what I remember and from what is being reported here, only insisted that the US provide any kind of proof that it was Bin Laden who committed those attacks. Bin Laden himself was denying that he had anything to do with the attacks, an unprecedented move in "terror history", if in fact he is/was guilty."

Yep..for the first time in history a "terror organization" pulls of a major successful terrorist attack for political gain and refuses to take credit. Nothing dubious there people, just move along.


"Whatever the case, it appears as if the government never really had evidence of Al Qaeda's involvement in the attacks, though most of the public would think otherwise, due to the media's role, as well as the government itself."

You mean to say fake videos of a guy who looks nothing like Been Hidin' isn't evidence? I must be a complete moron then.


"The government basically asked us to "trust them", without providing any proof or evidence. Yes, the same government who has repeatedly lied since, with everything from the bailouts, Iraq War, anthrax, the climate, our economy, warrantless wiretapping and the so-called health care reform."

Just because they continue to stick it up your anal cavity when you trust them doesn't mean you can't continue trusting them. You gotta have faith you know.


"So, what we have here, is that the government has not provided adequate proof that Al Qaeda is responsible and the little evidence that they have provided, is dubious at best. Any evidence that could be solid evidence, has been kept from the American people and the people of the world."

What's the matter with you? Don't you know that everyone is a terrorist until proven innocent. It's the American way. Of course, they'll probably be tortured and electrocuted way before being proven innocent, but that's beside the point.

Sorry to sound pessimistic, but all this will do is give less credibility to Noam Chomsky in the eyes of the mainstream. The wars will continue, and in this world you have more credibility by towing the line. I'm not saying I'm converting by any means, but I know the truth, and yet I also know what actions will be taken. Perhaps people will protest on the streets, but the real action is the bombs being dropped on innocent Muslim villages. It really makes you think twice when someone says "actions speak louder than words" well this is true mostly because actions are belligerent whereas words are often enlightening.

Of course because the government was behind 9/11 it will be impossible to get credible proof that it was bin laden and it will be impossible to get a new investigation. I'm just wondering about Obama. Once he became president surely he would have found out the truth about 9/11... if he knows the truth and isn't whistle blowing then he is just as guilty as those terrorists who he accuses right?

Originally posted by tortillawraps
Of course because the government was behind 9/11 it will be impossible to get credible proof that it was bin laden and it will be impossible to get a new investigation. I'm just wondering about Obama. Once he became president surely he would have found out the truth about 9/11... if he knows the truth and isn't whistle blowing then he is just as guilty as those terrorists who he accuses right?

Or alternatively he does know the truth, and it's that the terrorists did do it. His silence isn't exactly evidence of his complicity. It can be much better explained by the lack of a conspiracy.

Originally posted by tortillawraps
Of course because the government was behind 9/11 it will be impossible to get credible proof that it was bin laden and it will be impossible to get a new investigation. I'm just wondering about Obama. Once he became president surely he would have found out the truth about 9/11... if he knows the truth and isn't whistle blowing then he is just as guilty as those terrorists who he accuses right?

Obama is struggling at the moment. His prospects for a second term are not brilliant. Can you suggest why he should cover up for an alleged criminal Republican President when to dish the dirt could win him the next election ?

reply to post by Alfie1


Wow, a level of naivety I don't see on ATS often - check the threads that show the two party system is a fraud and get back to us. It's all I'll scratch you back and you scratch mine. Lots of examples of the two parties working together to cover their behind. Even on this site today there is a story of a hit and run driver for a major bank that gets away with it - because we know money trumps the truth and that does not show my point exactly but we are all clever enough to read between the lines - or are you Alfie1 gonna prove me wrong?!?

To the OP, big Chomsky fan but the last 10 years from him has been weak, like a faded musician we are only interested in his classic works - now he is a faded star IMO - still his early work is seminal and just about everything he says is correct - the work on the corrupting influence of money in the media is excellent.

Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy
reply to post by Alfie1

 

Wow, a level of naivety I don't see on ATS often - check the threads that show the two party system is a fraud and get back to us. It's all I'll scratch you back and you scratch mine. Lots of examples of the two parties working together to cover their behind. Even on this site today there is a story of a hit and run driver for a major bank that gets away with it - because we know money trumps the truth and that does not show my point exactly but we are all clever enough to read between the lines - or are you Alfie1 gonna prove me wrong?!?

Unqualified assertions do not make for a compelling argument. The unqualified assertion(aka "Bald assertion") is a logical fallacy(a logical fallacy is an error in reasoning) wherein someone states something as if it is incontrovertible truth when in fact it is controversial or even debunked/proven false.

Secondly, attacking the person as "naive" in the way you do above without demonstrating naivete on their part is fallacious as well.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, Noam Chomsky is a critical thinker...a skeptic. We skeptics criticize our own governments all the time. We just stick to criticizing people or institutions for what they actually DO, as opposed to what people imagine they may be capable of. None of us are "shills" or patsies for the U.S. government by virtue of not believing unsubstantiated(and often impossible) conspiracy theories about 9/11, JFK etc.

reply to post by SkeleTony


Let Alfie1 speak for himself, why are you defending him and posting off-topic, and thinking the the US government has not committed great crimes in the past including 9/11 is naive - it wasn't an attack - truth hurts and 9/11 was an inside job - have a look at the physics threads Diego Garica, fall of the Shah, depleted uranium weapons in Iraq, Bush admitting water-boarding (which is torture) no WMD's, massive financial holes in the defense and black op operations, un-maned drones, anthrax from a military lab, aspartimine in food, thanks Rummy, war on X which I can't even mention here - its like HIcks said - god says he made the world in 6 days, all perfect in every way, but wait a second, I left a plant growing - now I'm gonna have to make republicans. This list of state crimes of the West are legion. How are the homeless on the streets on New York these days - America the land of the corrupt - the people are great but the politics...well.

Peace