Noam Chomsky: He has changed...

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 05:39 AM
link   
Chomski is only part of an agenda. If you notice this about his belief, he thinks no one should own a fire arm. He is a puppet of the state sent in as controlled opposition. This is why he has his job at MIT.

He has never complained about corporations taking over thr government and the bankers taking over the government. All of his past endeavours have targetted the democratic/republican system. He wants a dictatorship but will never admit it.

The guy is two faced and a coward IMO.




posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by zaintdead
 



How can someone who spent their life exposing the crimes of the US government be so defensive and silent on what is the probably the biggest conspiracy of all time? Read what he wrote about Vietnam. He had no problem exposing government and media lies that led to that war, and numerous others throughout South America and elsewhere.


Because he doesn't think it was an inside job, and the "Truther" campaign distracts from the real scandals, eg; CIA smuggling Afghan heroin into Iran and Russia.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 06:49 AM
link   
Regarding the truly 'leftist' nature of the NeoCon's

Originally posted by ritualmurders911
that's exactly the reason why you shouldn't trust chomsky. he's bull#ting you. and that's why i don't trust fake liberals. just like neocons. ask about 9/11 and you'll soon find out that they (fake liberals and neocons) are the same.

Regarding Chomsky's true lack of courage:

Originally posted by TheMindWar
Chomski is only part of an agenda. The guy is two faced and a coward IMO.


Please allow me to quote myself :

Originally posted by Vitruvian on 15-7-2012
No truer words have been spoken. NeoCon(ism) is a far left Trotskyite political ideology emanating from Bolshevik communism - in its present form having been morphed into modern political reality at the University of Chicago and the leftist school.of Leo Strauss ..........the Neo Cons were good at hiding their Leftist roots........


Rest assured Noam Chomsky is surely reading this thread, and he must have winced more than once at some of the truthful remarks made here as to the true nature of his cowardly person(ality.) He might very well have a right to a lack of courage in the face of adversity by the powers that be, but it certainly isn't the hallmark of a "great man" as someone in this thread had mistakenly referred to his as. His actions - i.e., his general lack of courage with respect to facing up to the truth of 9/11 might well be a sign of "modern leftist intellectualism" in America, but those actions surely are not the signs of a true American patriot........Just my opinion.
edit on 17-7-2012 by Vitruvian because: edit



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by zaintdead
 


Chomsky gets a pass, in my opinion. He just doesn't know who did it, as far as I can tell. Just like the JFK assassination, he just doesn't know. Although he is a very clear writer and speaker, yet he remains, in both cases, vague.

Chomsky gets a pass, for me, because he constantly shows the crimes of this government. He exposes media and corporate propaganda, and he seems to truly care about what most famous philosophers call "the rabble", i.e., "the people".

Chomsky's work in the theory of language already assured his tenure as a professor in any university in the country. His choice to become a critic of U.S. foreign policy was, in my opinion, for two reasons. First, he seems to be satisfied with his linguistic model in the area of language philosophy, and second, because he does care about people around world that have suffered through the insane U.S. foreign policy.

9/11 was a crime scene covered-up by this government. People resigned from the 9/11 Commission report's "investigation", because they were blocked from having the evidence they requested, just as the public doing their own investigations are blocked from evidence necessary to assuage their fears that 9/11 had government complicity.

The lesson of the JFK assassination was that the public will not rise up when presented with with the truth of the matter. Only a few of us care, and we can't get others to give up their lives to be revolutionaries in this country. The majority of the people must be starving in order for revolution to occur, and that is far from the case in this country.

I've only been interested in U.S. foreign policy for eight years, yet I have no trust whatsoever in the American public coming together to change anything. I can't imagine what it is like for activists to have been involved for decades, and yet still hoping for such a miracle like 9/11 bringing millions of Americans together to rebel against the state of things in this country. Those people in the 60s watched the people of Laos, Vietnam, and Cambodia being slaughtered on TV night after night for no good reason, yet it took millions of those people to be murdered before it was stopped. So Chomsky gets a pass, from me, if he's still able to care enough about informing Americans about the atrocities committed by this government, yet remains unhelpful in being a source of reference for the truth about the specific crime of 9/11.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Being a 9/11 Truther is fantastically easy. It's a stance that requires no effort to maintain - unless you think posting on the internet is particularly arduous or dangerous - and no risk.

On the other hand genuine activism, as Chomsky says, is hard and sometimes dangerous.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by trysts
reply to post by zaintdead

Only a few of us care, and we can't get others to give up their lives to be revolutionaries in this country. The majority of the people must be starving in order for revolution to occur, and that is far from the case in this country.
.............. So Chomsky gets a pass, from me, if he's still able to care enough about informing Americans about the atrocities committed by this government, yet remains unhelpful in being a source of reference for the truth about the specific crime of 9/11.


Starving for what? Were Nathan Hale et al. "starving" excepting that he and many other true patriots such as he was possessed a true "hunger" for freedom.......then as now its really no different. The revolution will surely come when the oppressive US government becomes too much to bear as in the days of George III.
BTW – there are MANY of us who care………..not just a few! And NO pass for Noam Chomsky - hopefully he will face the Tribunals which would surely condemn him for dereliction of his patriotic duty and most especially for "cowardice in the face of the enemy."
edit on 17-7-2012 by Vitruvian because: edit



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitruvian
 


I imagine the tribunals will have capital sentencing powers, right?

Somehow they always do.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   
RE POSTED..SORRY
edit on 17-7-2012 by Vitruvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Back and forth we go... he's a coward, he's a hero, he's a sinner, he's a saint.

It's like a merry-go-round without a brass ring
because so few of us are actually certain. To be certain, one would need to have knowledge on what this one man has already contributed to the world. I doubt, like myself, that very few of us are privy to that voluminous and erudite career.

Cheap shots remain cheap shots when a magnifying glass is used to focus on only one detail of such a man's life.

9/11 is a rabbit warren in a briar patch the size of Texas. I don't blame him for not wading into what surely is already a singularly defining moment in the history of America... one that continues to evolve and shape laws and freedoms affecting the population of that country. Perhaps in another 10 years, we will be able to see through the murk of deception and make educated pronouncements.

For the time being, Chomsky is safe on third base and that batter named Truth is staring down the pitcher.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   
If you haven't already received applause from the staff, then please let me applaud you myself.

Firstly, I am impressed that you took the time and effort to write Mr. Chomsky. Most people don't have the intellect or the passion to have thought this through and questioned him on his stance---or lack thereof.

Next, I thought his answer was very telling. You have to read between the lines. He did not say that the government wasn't the perpetrator of 9/11. I believe he was saying that conclusion is too easy---that the answer probably goes deeper than that---after all, he says, the truth of our times is quite "shocking" to use his words.

All public figures, intellects, and the like have to pick their battles. I think this is one battle Mr. Chomsky is going to sit out. He is aware of the controversy, and the dichotomy of his silence, but he's not going there.

Impressed that you read his books at 15. It's hard when our "heroes" don't always measure up.

But you're right---Chomsky is one of the great intellectuals of our times. So don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

edit on 17-7-2012 by MRuss because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-7-2012 by MRuss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by zaintdead

So that's it really, maybe I wasn't polite... I don't know, but to say that claiming 9/11 was an inside job is 'safe and innocuous' is just... it doesn't make sense to me.


It does to me. He knows that the cockamamie Truther theories don't hold water and those that promote them aren't a threat to the ones in power. He thinks people should focus on the real issues.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitruvian

Originally posted by trysts
reply to post by zaintdead

Only a few of us care, and we can't get others to give up their lives to be revolutionaries in this country. The majority of the people must be starving in order for revolution to occur, and that is far from the case in this country.
.............. So Chomsky gets a pass, from me, if he's still able to care enough about informing Americans about the atrocities committed by this government, yet remains unhelpful in being a source of reference for the truth about the specific crime of 9/11.


Starving for what? Were Nathan Hale et al. "starving" excepting that he and many other true patriots such as he was possessed a true "hunger" for freedom.......then as now its really no different. The revolution will surely come when the oppressive US government becomes too much to bear as in the days of George III.
BTW – there are MANY of us who care………..not just a few! And NO pass for Noam Chomsky - hopefully he will face the Tribunals which would surely condemn him for dereliction of his patriotic duty and most especially for "cowardice in the face of the enemy."
edit on 17-7-2012 by Vitruvian because: edit


The American revolution was one revolving around a colony, separated by the vast Atlantic ocean, wishing to be a sovereign nation. It is not the case that a revolution in this country now, would be "no different" from then. The American revolutionaries never faced the full weight of the British forces. What forces did arrive from Britain, were able to bring together the nation through their occupation of this country. It was only through being occupied that the masses were able to see clearly who the enemy was, rather than trusting the merchants and landowners who wished their wealth not to be taxed. It was only through the "help" of European enemies of the British(coupled with the financial difficulties of holding onto a colony so far away in those times), that the occupying forces could see the futility of continuing a war against a colony in rebellion across the Atlantic ocean.

If you look at revolutions in history; French Revolution, Russian Revolution, etc., then you can see that the masses of those countries were starving. They were left without choice but to revolt, otherwise they would die of hunger as their friends and family had before their own eyes. There is nothing close to that being the case in the U.S. Most people can ignore the government. Most people can survive in this country no matter what horrors this government causes people around the world who are not Americans.

True, there are MANY people who care, but it is only a few, comparatively. My experience has demonstrated to me that most people would rather trade positions with those in power, and not change the system. Their position is to be free like those in power now, to have a piece of the pie, rather than throwing the pie out.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by zaintdead
 


It is a most remarkable reaction, revealing how little they know about dissent and protest. And of course is highly offensive. In fact, claiming that 9/11 was an inside job is one of the safest and most innocuous positions that one can take.

IMO, what he is saying here is that

1) claming 9/11 was an "inside job" is an easy, all-encompassing CASE-CLOSED kind of argument. Safe because if it's as simple as that to you, what truth will you uncover with this decided fiction...

2) that in this case perhaps TRUTH is stranger than fiction. Truth being the fact that 9/11 was "dissent and protest", not that terrorists "hate America because we are free", etc. The truth that the terrorists' intentions were buried and simply summed up to the masses as "evil terrorists". Or the truth meaning the long shady history between all of the parties involved.

There was a thread a while back with Osama Bin Laden quotes which revealed a lot about his reasons for attacking the United States. The public was of course not presented these insights on the news, etc. To us, we are supposed to see him as simply a lunatic mass murderer with zero real causes/not partake in any self-reflection.
edit on 7/17/2012 by AkumaStreak because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Chomsky is 100% right. It;s been over a decade and what have all these 9.11 activists accomplished? Nothing! It's extremely easy to be one, all it requires is having the internet and watching youtube videos.

It's a losing battle to take on. There is no way to prove that the government did it. If there was clear 100% undeniable proof that it was an inside job he would probably have no problem talking about it.

It's cool that you wrote him, I'd like to see the other e-mails as well.
edit on 17-7-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
Just my opinion, but Mr. Chomsky is telling us that you cannot create change or produce results by screaming bloody murder from the nearest mountain.

Change occurs from the inside by injecting the issue into the conversations and actions by people that have the power to do so.

In the circles he runs with, I'd be willing to bet that it is common knowledge that 9/11 is not what it seems. But it would do no good to talk openly about it if he has a better chance to create awareness and change from within much powerful circles.
edit on 16-7-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)


see? chomsky apologists are like i dunno... neocons. look how "intellectual" their bull# (excuse my french) explanations of noam's hypocrisy are? see? "oh, noam prolly knows 911 was an inside job but he doesn't want to tell it in public". bet your arse it's because mossad was prolly involved.

noam chomsky - hypocrite. period.
also, elvis was fat and mick jagger was/is ugly as f*$^.
edit on 17-7-2012 by ritualmurders911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
Chomsky is 100% right. It;s been over a decade and what have all these 9.11 activists accomplished? Nothing! It's extremely easy to be one, all it requires is having the internet and watching youtube videos.

It's a losing battle to take on. There is no way to prove that the government did it. If there was clear 100% undeniable proof that it was an inside job he would probably have no problem talking about it.

It's cool that you wrote him, I'd like to see the other e-mails as well.
edit on 17-7-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)


poor mainstream liberal fake pseudo hipster intellectuals. look how full of "understanding" they are? chomsky apologists remind me of debunkers. seriously. lol.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister

Originally posted by zaintdead

So that's it really, maybe I wasn't polite... I don't know, but to say that claiming 9/11 was an inside job is 'safe and innocuous' is just... it doesn't make sense to me.


It does to me. He knows that the cockamamie Truther theories don't hold water and those that promote them aren't a threat to the ones in power. He thinks people should focus on the real issues.


sir, you are full of it and so is noam. old has-been chomsky finds it "too risky" to talk loudly about the biggest false flag in the history of the world. eff him. his choice. time will be the judge. and you can bet your arse we will remember what chomsky said about 911.
edit on 17-7-2012 by ritualmurders911 because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-7-2012 by ritualmurders911 because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-7-2012 by ritualmurders911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ritualmurders911
 


Understanding? YUP. I agree with him. And I'm not liberal.


poor mainstream liberal fake pseudo hipster intellectuals


Poor wannabe underground truther intellectuals that watch a youtube video and become structural engineers overnight
edit on 17-7-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by ritualmurders911
 


Understanding? YUP. I agree with him. And I'm not liberal.


poor mainstream liberal fake pseudo hipster intellectuals


Poor wannabe underground truther intellectuals that watch a youtube video and become structural engineers overnight
edit on 17-7-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)


well, if you think about it (if you have that capacity in the first place), that says more about you, chomsky, debunkers and establishment (including the mainstream media, including fake liberal "alternative" media) than "Poor wannabe underground truther intellectuals that watch a youtube video and become structural engineers overnight".

have a nice day. sir. lol?
edit on 17-7-2012 by ritualmurders911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Well here's another e-mail, he seems to just quote my entire email then make comments in bold which might make it hard to follow, so i centered his 'tidbits'. There's another e-mail but he isn't exactly being friendly so I didn't continue to discuss it with him much further. I don't think I'm going to get him to say anything of value about 9/11 by continuing any dialogue:



From: Noam Chomsky (chomsky@MIT.EDU) Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 5:54:55 PM To: ...

Below.



From: zaintdead Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 11:44 AM To: chomsky@mit.edu Subject: RE: Deterring democracy and your other books

Thanks for your reply, I know you are very busy and my e-mail was a touchy subject. I have discussed this with several people over a long period of time. Some are highly educated and would not just throw factoids at people to convince them that 9/11 was a conspiracy. Your reply was short but I have tried to gleam what I can from it. As far as I can understand, you are saying that the "truth movement" is "safe and innocuous" in that it is a mainstream movement that allows a lot of people to just accept that they have no control ... and therefore have no liability/responsibility for the actions their government takes. Therefore it allows people to complain but without having to really risk anything or even become actiive in their communities or in politics.


That’s not at all what I said. It’s certainly not a mainstream movement; it’s a marginal movement. The rest is also mostly your invention. With one exception. The TM happens to be “safe and innocuous,” as compared with authentic activism. That’s why it is so disgraceful for those who sympathize with the TM to produce streams of insults claiming that activists – who willingly undertake real risks (in my case, they are well known) – are bowing to pressure by not joining the TM and indulging in its safe and innocuous activities. By rights you should apologize. If you don’t want to, that’s your business.



I can undestand that (I am not attributing that point of view to you) I am just reading between your lines and it is my own subjective opinion. There is however a dark side to this issue that I do not think can be ignored. There are many who say that if a famous intellectual spoke out against the 9/11 official story then they would have an 'accident'.

That’s utter garbage. Famous intellectuals have quite openly spoken against the official story, and nothing happens at all. As noted, it’s “safe and innocuous,” though some participants like to pretend to be very courageous and to insult others who actually do take serious risks.



Furthermore some find it almost cartoonish that MIT, being one of the top (if not the top) engineering school in the world has young intelligent students who have to throw away simple highschool physics to graduate. I was invited to MIT for theoretical physics, but I could not afford the tuition fee. Others... mention that MIT has Bazant.

If “some find it almost cartoonish,” one can only extend one’s sympathies to them.



You have written extensively about Vietnam, South America... the list is almost endless. If you do not want to contribute to the 9/11 discussion then all respect to you. I think I understand now.


Plainly, you don’t understand a word.



But I AM interseted in crimes of state (I use a vpn here in China just to hide what I google or research). If you have any areas or topics that I should research then please refer me to them. I am not a 9/11 researcher. I want to be educated and understand how the world works. I find the current state of world affairs to be incredibly depressing. I would be very grateful if you could suggest a top for study. It does not have to be related to 9/11.


I can’t, because from these letters I have no idea whether you are willing to undertake a serious study of something, and if so, what your interests are.



Sincerely,

zaintdead
edit on 19-7-2012 by zaintdead because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join