It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Noam Chomsky on Ron Paul's 9/11 Theories: What He Says Is Uncontroversial!

page: 2
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by trika3000
 


It is an imposter, and not even a good one at that. I think what Dr. Paul says about the war is spot on and I agree 100%. However you are deluded if you think he is going to win the presidency. He has many good solid traits that this country really needs but he is still a corporatist and will further the goals of the corportocracy. Did you notice he wants to abolish the minimum wage? Really look at him. He's not a libertarian like many of you want to believe, he is a republican.




posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 
I'll try to address this understandably...


man i dont know its messed up but paul may be right on some level but history has proven him wrong in so many ways.

I disagree - history has proven him correct time and again, as have our own intelligence analyses and foreign policy experts. Politicians and demagogues may say otherwise, but honestly, what do people normally think of what they say?


my only problems with this isolationism doesnt work never has.

americans buried their heads in the sand under wilson world war 1 happened

returned to that then world war 2 happened un fdr both times massive grab for power by the government.

then fast forward to clinton buried his head in the sand then 9-11 happened.

First off, what's isolationist about merely not interfering in the internal affairs of other nations, occupying their lands, killing their civilians, having the CIA try to induce coups, and so forth? Ron Paul, and a good many of the rest of us, are all for open trade, travel, diplomatic relations, and setting good examples for other nations. This is not isolationist in the least.

Much different than the complete isolationism we did practice at some points in our distant past, and WWI was just a retarded examples of entangling alliances at work, which our founders and Ron Paul both warn against. So, Ferdinand gets assassinated, and starts a dispute, which promptly escalates...and since all involved parties had defense agreements/treaties with the big dogs who were then obligated to get involved to defend the idiots involved in the spat, it turns into a global debacle. Much better to not have had these treaties and let the initial players work it out locally.

As far as WWII, policy issues were the main culprit there - the Versailles Treaty and related factors imposed on Germany after WWI punished the country excessively, helped wreck their economy, and engendered enough bitterness and animosity to allow Hitler to grasp the reins of power and begin all that - an example of intervention in the affairs of Germany leading to (terrible) blowback.


at face value pauls stance has some merit however when people are held to account for their actions...

they attacked us because we are there? how childish is that seriously? hey millions of them in the west in our lands and i dont see americans strapping bombs on their chest and flying bombs into their buildings.

It's not all that childish. I won't even go into the rest, we'll focus on our two current favoritate, Iraq and Iran. Look into the death statistics for Iraq, starting with the Gulf War - officially acknowledged tally is around 100,000 civilian deaths, and then you'll want to figure in the additional hundreds of thousands killed afterward by our sanctions, "no fly" zones, as well as the existing animosity at the US and its allies having helped Sadaam (a brutal dictator) aquire and maintain power by supporting him against - if I recall correctly - either the soviets or Iran, as well as arming him with a good many weapons.

As to Iran, watch this video:


Your example of millions of "them in the west in our lands" falls flat, friend - "they" are for the most part american citizens. We're not discussing peaceful immigration and citizens here, we're talking military aggression, arming dictators, overthrowing elected officials and helping tyrants maintain power.

Please, take an unbiased look at the historical record of our actions compared to theirs, and let me know if it's ever even been in the same ballpark. I will pretty much guarantee you, though, if they were treating us the same way, you likely WOULD see a good many "terrorists" of US nationality springing up, suddenly. Hell, we don't even have the excuse of being occupied or oppressed by them, and we're already running around their countries doing as we want, telling them what they'll do, and generally being unpleasant.


hell under clinton that tag line was fighting to save muslims.

9-11 was the game changer they can be here but no we are going to kill you because you sit foot in "holy land"

Not sure about your first point there...Bosnia, Serbia, etc., a lot of bad things still happened to general populations as a result of our actions, and we tend to pick a side that benefits our interests, and not necessarily those of the common people in that area - regardless of how the politician sell it or our never-biased (wink, wink) media reports it.

As far as 9/11 being the game changer and them being here - flip it around. Have them putting up their bases all over our country, setting up no-fly zones, imposing sanctions (leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, at least), setting up and arming cruel rulers for us here...then get back to me.

Take care.
edit on 9/14/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by damwel
 

He has many good solid traits that this country really needs but he is still a corporatist and will further the goals of the corportocracy. Did you notice he wants to abolish the minimum wage? Really look at him. He's not a libertarian like many of you want to believe, he is a republican.

Can you clarify for me how exactly the corporations don't already rule this country in any way they want? I think he would in fact change things to stop SUBSIDIZING the corporations, stop setting up 'regulatory' agencies that in fact do no such things but set up rules the way the corporations want (and then hire on former corporate execs. while former 'regulators' get cushy jobs in those same corporations and industries - fox in the henhouse, much?) which only buries small competition by way of regulations and penalties that they can't meet, which big business can just shrug off like nothing - this stifles innovation and small business/startups and means big business doesn't really have to compete, other than with other big business - and nothing changes.

And can you tell me when Paul has ever campaigned on abolishing the minimum wage? Never. Yes, he would personally like to see it go because it DOES have some harmful effects on small business as well as youth employment, among other things if you'd care to research it, but this only ever comes up as a gotcha question that people can pull out on Paul and has NEVER been one of his priorities - we have much bigger fish to fry, and this is akin to Paul questioning the theory of evolution: it wouldn't be a focus of his, he can't do anything about it himself anyway, and is actually worth at least examining in the first place.

And yes, Paul's obviously a republican - a classical old right republican in the vein of Taft. That has nothing to do with the fact that he's also very small-l libertarian. If you want to dispute this, research it and let me know where exactly Paul strays from libertarian roots - as far as I'm aware, it's primarily on immigration as they tend to believe in the free movement of people across borders, which Paul can't agree with at this point due to issues in the world and our current situations & policies.

Thanks, and be well.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
A perfect demonstration of why Ron Paul will never be POTUS.

You never say anything to incite public boos. Case in point.... Hillary got booed all over NY before the last election for the same type of anti american bleeding heart excuses. She was glossed over by a no talent no experience upstart by the DNC honchos.

Nobody with real power will jump on the good ship Ron Paully-Pop to take a voyage into make believe.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
Nobody with real power will jump on the good ship Ron Paully-Pop to take a voyage into make believe.

umm..
what exactly is make-believe?


Can you expand on that?



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
So, now we've pulled out yet another fossil - noam "the a-hole" chomsky or whatever his name is.....

Maybe you guys should look up what his company does...or how he made his millions.....

then, just maybe you guys won't want to suck his cock....



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
First of all let's talk about Noam. The old man isn't a great speaker, but he writes more often than he breathes. lol

I have been a fan of his ever since Russ Kick started including him in the series he has been editing for Disinfo.com. Indeed, my other hard drive has many of his books and essays on it. Noam tells it like it is.

As for the debate... I watched this segment just last night and was appalled once again at just how uninformed the public still is. There is a lot of talk these days about the people waking up, but to me they are still trying to pull those same old smelly covers over their heads and roll over for more slumber. I understand that no one wants to admit they are wrong, ever! But how many innocent people have to die and be victimized before we all start paying attention to what is going on? And I am not just talking about the Arab civilians in this but the kids that are sent over to this meat grinder. Whether they come back alive or not, they are victims just the same.

Ron Paul was right about the reasons these Arab terrorists despise us. How many of us are truly dim enough to believe that old tired story that they hate us because we are free? It makes no sense at all if you give it thirty seconds worth of serious consideration. (I mean is that the best lie they could come up with?)

Hitler said that the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it. While Goering said that if you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it. Well, we have in recent decades watched both of those theories proven, by our government, on us. I am one of the few people left in the world who still reads books, and I would like to believe that many of us here on ATS fall into this category, but I am not willing to take even that on faith these days.

Some of you may be familiar with Chalmers Johnson and his book Blowback, in it he says basically the same thing that drew Ron Paul boos at the Florida debate. The information is out there, it is unpleasant, but it is there for all who care to read. Sometimes I feel as though Americans prefer easy lies to hard truths and that leaves me very disappointed. If you are operating on the basis of lies it is impossible to make a good and informed decision.

Someone once wrote that if you have a friend who lies to you, well, you might forgive it. If that same friend is caught lying to you again, you might still forgive it, depending on how good a friend he has been. But if you catch your friend lying to you time and time again, well, then it is time to find a new friend.

If you take the preceding paragraph and substitute the word government for the word friend...

The Government and the people behind the scenes have been caught lying to us repeatedly. Why then do we still continue to try to take what they tell us at face value? Wouldn't it make more sense to verify what we are told before we start to defend it vehemently by booing at the debates? Especially when our source for the official story is dubious at best, and has shown itself to be driven by only the morality of finance and profit.

Sure we give lip service about freedom and liberty, but these terms are only subjective these days, even in the United States.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 





they attacked us because we are there? how childish is that seriously? hey millions of them in the west in our lands and i dont see americans strapping bombs on their chest and flying bombs into their buildings.


I don't see the millions in the west flying in in helicopters and dropping smart bombs down civilian's chimneys either, the way we are doing over there. We have bases in their holy land. We are occupying their country, not just buying up the convenience stores. C'mon man, give us credit for being smart enough to control our own drool. how childish an argument is that seriously?



man i dont know its messed up but paul may be right on some level but history has proven him wrong in so many ways.


As a longtime history buff I am dying to hear this one. How is he wrong on history? Are you sure the history you were taught was true? The history I was taught wasn't. To know history the education has to occur after school, not during. So far Ron hasn't said anything historical that I have seen which isn't correct.

Can you state some instances, examples?



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by tom1701
 





Maybe you guys should look up what his company does...or how he made his millions.....


Perhaps you would like to fill us in? Pictures or it didn't happen, Proof? Otherwise you are just an irresponsible poster, and that won't work here.

I think you might want to look at the T&C one more time, or once if you haven't.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 





You never say anything to incite public boos. Case in point.... Hillary got booed all over NY before the last election for the same type of anti american bleeding heart excuses. She was glossed over by a no talent no experience upstart by the DNC honchos.


Perhaps you would prefer lies? I do not understand your complaint.

Oh, I get it, you are doing your troll imitation again. Sorry spoke too soon and out of reason. My bad.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


we are going to disagree here doesnt matter one way or the other even if we withdraw from the world nothing is going to change anything.

bad people are going to do bad things and like those events something will end back up on us.

i am not a fan of 900 bases either but sticking your head in the sand and thinking happy happy thoughts will not change a thing.

time will prove that right



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 




I wonder what would happen if Paul won the Presidency, and he runs straight into the brick wall of the CFR, who uses "conflict management" the NWO way. Others have speculated on this as well. i'm certain that Paul knows what he is up against, but we saw what happened even when Reagan put up a fight. He would have to have enough people around to support him in implementing his plan of less interventionism.


Actually, the way I understand it Reagan's fight ended before he got into the White House. From what I have read the CFR pushed George Bush onto him as a running mate or the Democrats would be handed the Oval Office, so in effect Bush was the President during that administration for all intents and purposes. This can be seen as a forerunner of the Cheney administration since so many names and faces from the Reagan era returned during the George Jr. reign. And as most of us here are aware, Cheney and Rumsfeld are set to return again under the continuity of Government provisions which are still in place today. (Funny, I thought we (s)elected a Democrat last time, silly of me to get something so simple wrong, huh?)

Frankly, I have thought about your concerns about the CFR, as I hope most Ron Paul supporters have. I worry about it too, but I worry more about Ron Paul physically surviving the struggle. We all know that TPTB like to kill people who buck the system, but that in itself is the best evidence that we absolutely need this change. Do we not want our country back?



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 

we are going to disagree here doesnt matter one way or the other even if we withdraw from the world nothing is going to change anything.

bad people are going to do bad things and like those events something will end back up on us.

I don't see any reason we can't agree, at this point I think we may just be talking around each other on the issues, or misunderstanding some of the points being made. I definitely agree that bad people will likely never stop doing bad things, and some of those will come our way.


i am not a fan of 900 bases either but sticking your head in the sand and thinking happy happy thoughts will not change a thing.

time will prove that right

Oh, time likely HAS proven that right, but this is where the misunderstanding is coming from. Paul isn't saying to not pay attention to what's going on in the world, he's saying stop hitting the beehive with a stick or poking your nose into it.

Paul has advocated, prior to 9/11, legislation and funding that would have allowed strengthening and reinforcement of cockpit doors, as well as allowing pilots (or getting hurdles out of their way) to have firearms in the cockpit, both of which would have helped prevent the events of 9/11 - depending on your views of the official scenario, at least.

He's also advocated cutting out the bureaucratic redundancy, bloat, and other wasteful factors in our intelligence agencies to allow actual intelligence to be gathered and then followed up on without intra-agency conflict, arguments over jurisdiction, and various other crossover so we can actually identify threats and then respond to them accordingly.

By no means is he saying "let's just come home and sing kumbaya and put on our blinders", he's merely telling us if we act in an antagonistic fashion around the world people will respond to that, and that our intelligence agencies currently cause more problems and work against themselves than they otherwise ought. Additionally, he recognizes that having our military strung out around the world and burned out from multiple deployments while our borders are porous and unsecure (not to mention hosting a running war on our southern border with the cartels) does us no good, when they could instead be here at home resting and training and ready to respond to any actual threats while securing our borders and saving hundreds of billions a year, at the very least.

For clarity: I would rather have an focused and decisive welterweight who doesn't start problems all the time in by my side than a flabby heavyweight with multiple personalities who's always picking fights with people he doesn't like.
edit on 9/14/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 





i am not a fan of 900 bases either but sticking your head in the sand and thinking happy happy thoughts will not change a thing.


So you are saying you want us to be the American Empire? No one wants to stick their heads in the sand, just not in other people's business. At any rate we can no longer afford to be the American Empire, unless of course you have a couple Trill you would like to kick in to foot the bill for a while.

Do you really believe that we are there to give those poor Arabs freedom? If so, why are we killing so many of them. Seems kind of counter-intuitive, doesn't it? No, what we are doing there is the same thing we did when we victimized the people of South America. However you and I didn't benefit from the fleecing of America del Sud one bit. And we are not benefiting from the fleecing we are giving the Arab world either, as gas prices continue to climb.

Whenever you investigate a crime, and this is one, you look for the motive. In your case I'll be damned if I can see what motivation you could possibly have for defending a system in which you are indeed one of their victims. Could you help me out in understanding this?
edit on 14-9-2011 by Ittabena because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
How about you do your own research on noem the idiot chomsky......



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by tom1701
How about you do your own research on noem the idiot chomsky......


So why don't you enlighten us as to why noem [sic] is the idiot, and it's not simply yourself?

You can't even spell his name corectly lol.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
If we were talking about baseball you would fight each other to the death to prove who is the better team, NY mets or Ny Yankees. If that doesnt work you can criticize all the non white people who run businesses and are living the american dream. If that doesnt work you can criticize people for their religion even though you dont have any. If that doesn't work you can judge people by how much money they look like they have. If that doesn't work then maybe you can cut people off on the highway to make yourself think you're unique and fast..... If that doesnt work you can try to fight a guy at the bar because he is stronger and better looking than you and your girlfriend has been checking him out all night and hes black....... Hateful, ignorant beasts most of you are. and you dont even know it.

Bottom line. America deserves to be occupied by a foreign military force. I would love to see check points on every corner, 100's of thousands of civilian deaths, crying americans that no one cares to listen to while the news in Europe is more concerned over a british pop star then the defeat of america. Too many stupid people in the states, there is no turning back or improving it unless its is burned. The Phoenix will rise out of the ashes.

America deserves so much worse for its ignorance.
edit on 14-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
If we were talking about baseball you would fight each other to the death to prove who is the better team, NY mets or Ny Yankees. If that doesnt work you can criticize all the non white people who run businesses and are living the american dream. If that doesnt work you can criticize people for their religion even though you dont have any. If that doesn't work you can judge people by how much money they look like they have. If that doesn't work then maybe you can cut people off on the highway to make yourself think you're unique and fast..... If that doesnt work you can try to fight a guy at the bar because he is stronger and better looking than you and your girlfriend has been checking him out all night and hes black....... Hateful, ignorant beasts most of you are. and you dont even know it.

Bottom line. America deserves to be occupied by a foreign military force. I would love to see check points on every corner, 100's of thousands of civilian deaths, crying americans that no one cares to listen to while the news in Europe is more concerned over a british pop star then the defeat of america. Too many stupid people in the states, there is no turning back or improving it unless its is burned. The Phoenix will rise out of the ashes.

America deserves so much worse for its ignorance.
edit on 14-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)


In your first paragraph, you speak of people fighting in bars and cutting others off on the highway. Everything in that paragraph is human nature. That's not just Americans. I've been many places all over the world and people act like that everywhere, and it's just as annoying regardless of where you're at. I feel that people with attitudes like that, who are too easily controlled by their emotions to do stupid things, deserve to be the ones in those "civilian deaths" you spoke of. Anyone with that type of attitude, in any country.

As for a foreign military force occupying American soil? I will assume you mean that Americans need a taste of their own medicine. And many do, but not all. Also, who should occupy American soil? Europe? China? Frankly, i'd love to see it happen just as much as you do. Unfortunately for your wishes, neither of them have the cojones to do so.

Cheers



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightAssassin
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


I thought Osama Bin Laden denied any involvement in the attacks. Thats why the US Govt murdered him. So he couldn't have a fair trial where the evidence/truth would come spilling out about the CIA's involvement.

Ron Pauls mis-info is better than what George Bush's dis-info was. I'd like to see where Osama Bin Laden said this.



Why did they attack us in New York and Washington?

If Sharon is a man of peace in the eyes of Bush, then we are also men of peace!!! America does not understand the language of manners and principles, so we are addressing it using the language it understands.


www.guardian.co.uk...
edit on 14-9-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 




the analogy of Christian fundamentalists being 1/3 of the population and taking over the country and instituting a Khomeini like theocracy is ludicrous. I can't believe that Ron Paul supporters stooped to that level with the whole anti-imperialist spiel.
Too leftist.


edit on 14-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join