Who is Behind 9/11 and Why? (Chomsky)

[yankee451]

That‘s not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that I think I'm morally superior than people who try to kill random, innocent people. That's it.

Who are innocent in your morally superior world? Do hundreds of thousands of men, women and children from Afghanistan, Iraq, Syra and Pakistan however carefully avoided with "smart weapons" yet no less dead, count? If 9/11 was a pretext for their murders (it was), wouldn't that make the claim of "moral superiority" repugnant?

Again, not what I'm saying at all. I don't believe most armed forces are out to kill innocent people. I'm not saying it's okay for one side to kill innocent people, but not for the other. I'm saying there's a moral difference between maximizing innocent deaths (e.g. 9/11) or trying to minimize them (e.g. to use smart ammunition to avoid collateral damage).

Any so called "Armed Forces" that deploys MOABs, Cruise Missiles and other various forms of "shock and awe" weapons of mass destruction knows they will kill innocent people, but that doesn't stop them from deploying them. Surely the "enemy" knows they weren't responsible for 9/11, so we're not fooling them with our moral superiority, are we?

Not only that, but the fact that some people try to kill as much random, innocent people.

Seems to me that if I had an army and was itching for a reason to use it on Enemy A, all I would need to do would be to attack some of my own innocent people and make it look like Enemy A did it. Isn't that how it's been done since before Sparticus?

I doubt I would find a police officer who accidentally and for justifiable reasons killed an innocent person morally inferior.

But what about an innocent person who killed a trigger-happy cop in self defense? I'm betting different rules apply?

 

[Courier]

There's this crazy idea out there that a bunch of knuckle-dragging, cavemen Arabs were able to hijack four planes and crash them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania.

Crazy huh?

 

[yankee451]

There's this crazy idea out there that a bunch of knuckle-dragging, cavemen Arabs were able to hijack four planes and crash them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania.

Crazy huh?

It's only crazy if you think about it.

 

[Courier]

It's only crazy if you think about it.

Sarcasm flew over your head huh?

 

[DGM]

There's this crazy idea out there that a bunch of knuckle-dragging, cavemen Arabs were able to hijack four planes and crash them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania.

Crazy huh?

Yes. What moron would believe this?

 

[yankee451]

Sarcasm flew over your head huh?

So you haven't thought about it.

 

[yankee451]

Yes. What moron would believe this?

All of them?

 

[DGM]

All of them?

Does that include you? I don't believe this, it never happened.

 

[Redwood]

This thread went to hell in record time.

 

[dannyb]

Look, no matter where you're from, if you go out of your way to kill as many random innocent people as you can, then yes, I am morally superior.

The point is we should spend more time on the crimes of our government - which happen to be much more serious - because we can actually do something about them. It's the correct ethical judgement, rather than engaging paranoia and obsessing over what Islamists might do, which actually helps facilitate disgraceful policies like drones.

Also, if western forces were actually trying to kill as many innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think they would use muchmore effective measures.

Doesn't matter. Killing one innocent person is unacceptable and should be denounced just as vigorously as terrorism committed against us. Which, as Westerners, we are practically immune from.

Instead, what we get from the media and most 'intellectuals' is apologia and disgusting euphemisms like 'collateral damage'. It would be unthinkable to talk about 9/11 as bin Laden's 'collateral damage' in pursuit of his goal of expelling infidels from Muslim lands and ending support for Israel - so we shouldn't use it when discussing our victims.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Seems to me that if I had an army and was itching for a reason to use it on Enemy A, all I would need to do would be to attack some of my own innocent people and make it look like Enemy A did it.

Ahh. That explains why they framed those 19 Afghans and Iraqis for the hijackings, and claimed Saddam Hussain funded the operation. It all makes sense.

Oh, no, wait.

 

[trustbutverify]

As most of you will know, Chomsky does not subscribe to any kind of 'truther' thinking and, rightly, considers it a distraction from serious issues. But I want to share these videos here as I assume those of you who frequent this forum maintain an interest in 9/11. To cover my back, I will say that if there was a 9/11 'conspiracy' it was the Commission downplaying - although not entirely suppressing - the main motivations for al-Qaeda to carry out the attack.

One thing I have noticed about this forum, and is perhaps part of the reason truthers dismiss your impressive technical knowledge, is that it contains a lot of reactionaries and nationalists. A familiar refrain when I have shared such material in the past is that one is 'justifying' terrorism. First of all, it's important to differentiate between an explanation and a justification - something the educated among you should have no problem distinguishing. Second of all - and more importantly - is getting out of the imperialist mentality of Western superiority. Just because 'we' use sophisticated military technology and 'they' use suicide hijackers does not make us morally superior.

The last video is, arguably, the most important; so please watch all three if you can.

Which is why the "anti-imperialist, anti-western superiority" lecturers explain the nuclear attack on Japan, the allied bombing of Dresden and NATO's air attacks on Kosovo in terms of responsibility of the targets of these attacks.

Oh, wait.......

 

[Courier]

Instead, what we get from the media and most 'intellectuals' is apologia and disgusting euphemisms like 'collateral damage'. It would be unthinkable to talk about 9/11 as bin Laden's 'collateral damage' in pursuit of his goal of expelling infidels from Muslim lands and ending support for Israel - so we shouldn't use it when discussing our victims.

The USA doesn't target innocent civilians for killing.

Our enemies do.

When we kill innocent civilians we express our regrets and compensate their families. When our enemies do it they cheer their "successful" mission.

 

[dannyb]

The USA doesn't target innocent civilians for killing.

Our enemies do.

When we kill innocent civilians we express our regrets and compensate their families. When our enemies do it they cheer their "successful" mission.

The US invades/attacks other countries with the understanding there will be civilian deaths - what's the distinction?

Regret is not consistently expressed. In fact, the drone campaign is a good example where there is still denial about the level of civilian casualties.

There is plenty of cheerleading in the US about its imperialist ventures. The most recent bombing campaign - Libya - is considered 'successful' because of the removal of a disobedient tyrant; despite the underreported issues - such as unaccountable militia - which have arisen since.

 

[Courier]

The US invades/attacks other countries with the understanding there will be civilian deaths - what's the distinction?

You are fully aware of the distinction between terrorists targeting civilians for murder and a nation targeting terrorists for murder and inadvertently killing civilians in the process.

 

[dannyb]

You are fully aware of the distinction between terrorists targeting civilians for murder and a nation targeting terrorists for murder and inadvertently killing civilians in the process.

There's nothing inadvertent about it. The way to respond to terrorism is by treating them as criminals and addressing the underlying causes of the terrorism. Not committing more terrorism in response.

 

[yankee451]

There's nothing inadvertent about it. The way to respond to terrorism is by treating them as criminals and addressing the underlying causes of the terrorism. Not committing more terrorism in response.

Hear, hear.

 

[Redwood]

Doesn't this thread belong in the politics section, since it's not really about "9/11 Conspiracy Theories", but about those who espouse or rebut them?

Or, maybe AAH?

 

[Courier]

There's nothing inadvertent about it. The way to respond to terrorism is by treating them as criminals and addressing the underlying causes of the terrorism. Not committing more terrorism in response.

The underlying cause for Islamist extremist terrorists isn't our actions but their extremist beliefs. They simply use our actions as an EXCUSE for their bloodthirsty ways.

You can blame the USA and the Jews all you like.

 

[Axxman300]

The US invades/attacks other countries with the understanding there will be civilian deaths - what's the distinction?

Regret is not consistently expressed. In fact, the drone campaign is a good example where there is still denial about the level of civilian casualties.

There is plenty of cheerleading in the US about its imperialist ventures. The most recent bombing campaign - Libya - is considered 'successful' because of the removal of a disobedient tyrant; despite the underreported issues - such as unaccountable militia - which have arisen since.

The civilian casualties of the drone campaign are reported. It's just that they are killed because they are living in compounds where terrorist training is on-going. Terrorists bring their families because it makes them harder to target (believe it or not there are more drone targets that are scrubbed due to the presence of civilians than are prosecuted. We never get credit for that.)

The thing that needs to be asked is what would an Arab Country have done were it in our shoes on 9/11 and had the exact same military force at its disposal as the United States? We know what Iraq would have done because they invaded two of its neighbors. We know what Iran wants to do because they keep telling us.

If the United States deliberately wanted to target civilians we could have done that from Omaha, or brought our Trident subs to launch depth. The truth is that if we were all about killing people we could do it cheaply and in under an hour.

But we don't...