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

[Mikeys]

I'm not entirely sure you understood my question. Let's put it this way; a subset of the people/organizations/countries who feel they have been in some way wronged by the U.S. occasionally strike back at the U.S. in the form of what are commonly referred to as "terrorist attacks". Conspiracy Theorists tend to dismiss most, if not all, of these "terrorist attacks" as "false flags".

Why?

Congratulation John. That's the prize for 911, a bonus. Profits fine. How about penalties.

 

[JohnG]

Congratulation John. That's the prize for 911, a bonus. Profits fine. How about penalties.

Pardon?

 

[TheRedWorm]

Congratulation John. That's the prize for 911, a bonus. Profits fine. How about penalties.

What about the hijackers? They died thinking that they were about to enter an eternal paradise. Wouldn't you consider that profiting?

 

[dafydd]

Congratulation John. That's the prize for 911, a bonus. Profits fine. How about penalties.

You are not making sense. Please try to express it again in understandable English.

 

[Mikeys]

Originally Posted by JohnG
I'm not entirely sure you understood my question. Let's put it this way; a subset of the people/organizations/countries who feel they have been in some way wronged by the U.S. occasionally strike back at the U.S. in the form of what are commonly referred to as "terrorist attacks". Conspiracy Theorists tend to dismiss most, if not all, of these "terrorist attacks" as "false flags".

Truth to be told I don't know of any terrosit attacks elsewhere apart from London and Madrid, both flagged as false flags.I don't know which means I don't have an opinion one way or another. I am not a conspiracy terrorist much less conspiracy terrorists. You got the wrong address. I dont give a crap and don't have a clue about chemtrails or JFK or 99% of other conspiracy stuff which is irelevant in my opinion. Why America, I don't know, never thought about it. I would guess 911 would be the answer.

 

[djlunacee]

Is there a name for this physiological condition? I propose False Flag De-Cognitive Syndrome.

Paranoia, Arrogance, Ignorance, Stupidity...or are these going to be the symptoms?

 

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by JohnG
I'm not entirely sure you understood my question. Let's put it this way; a subset of the people/organizations/countries who feel they have been in some way wronged by the U.S. occasionally strike back at the U.S. in the form of what are commonly referred to as "terrorist attacks". Conspiracy Theorists tend to dismiss most, if not all, of these "terrorist attacks" as "false flags".

Truth to be told I don't know of any terrosit attacks elsewhere apart from London and Madrid, both flagged as false flags.I don't know which means I don't have an opinion one way or another. I am not a conspiracy terrorist much less conspiracy terrorists. You got the wrong address. I dont give a crap and don't have a clue about chemtrails or JFK or 99% of other conspiracy stuff which is irelevant in my opinion. Why America, I don't know, never thought about it. I would guess 911 would be the answer.

What does the highlighted part mean?

 

[Dash80]

Truth to be told I don't know of any terrosit attacks elsewhere apart from London and Madrid, both flagged as false flags.I don't know which means I don't have an opinion one way or another. I am not a conspiracy terrorist much less conspiracy terrorists. You got the wrong address. I dont give a crap and don't have a clue about chemtrails or JFK or 99% of other conspiracy stuff which is irelevant in my opinion. Why America, I don't know, never thought about it. I would guess 911 would be the answer.

Honestly, I'm not being rude or anything but do you even think about your posts before you type them? Or check them before you hit submit?

I (and not just me) have trouble understanding what the hell you are waffling on about.

 

[JohnG]

Truth to be told I don't know of any terrosit attacks elsewhere apart from London and Madrid, both flagged as false flags.I don't know which means I don't have an opinion one way or another. I am not a conspiracy terrorist much less conspiracy terrorists. You got the wrong address. I dont give a crap and don't have a clue about chemtrails or JFK or 99% of other conspiracy stuff which is irelevant in my opinion. Why America, I don't know, never thought about it. I would guess 911 would be the answer.

You seem to have difficulty understanding what I and others here are writing and you in turn are having difficulty making yourself understood. You need to consider the possibility that your difficulties in written communication may be preventing you from understanding not only what posters are writing in this forum, but what journalists, politicians, engineers and other informed people outside of this forum are writing, regarding 9/11. These difficulties could lead you to reach erroneous conclusions about 9/11.

 

[Mikeys]

that indeed can be the case. adieu

 

[dannyb]

Chomsky is about as controlled of a "left wing anarchist" as you can get.

This is irrational; a convenient way to dismiss the claims of someone you think should agree with you. If you believe Chomsky has written work such as Fateful Triangle, Manufacturing Consent & Failed States in order to obliquely defend the US government, then it goes some way to affirming my belief that truthers adhere only to dogma. It's incredibly disappointing you would dismiss a whole body of important dissident literature because he doesn't subscribe to your conspiracy theories.

This is the power of propaganda at work, but this is something no good propagandist would ever consider to be an option, so we end up with "intellectuals" like Chomsky with long-winded explanations which deliberately dance around the only conclusion that can answer all the questions; that 9/11 was and remains an operation run from the top, down.

Here you are, again, showing your ignorance. If you were familiar with his work beyond what he has to say about your dearly held conspiracy theories you would know he derides the term 'intellectual' and certainly does not self identify as one.

There is a difference between making threats and carrying them out. Iran has killed Americans and we have never responded with force. It is a huge contention between the US government and its people too. It is what has allowed the wars in west Asia to continue. There is a lot of bad blood that dates back to the Iranian Hostage Crisis of the late 1970s.

In fact, it was because of Iran that President Carter made the free flow of oil a direct matter of national security which lead to the construction of US airbases in Saudi Arabia, and the backing of Iraq against Iran in their war.

Non-violence and containment has lead us into two wars, and is leading to the next one.

What a country, even Iran, does in the context of a war is fair game. If we strike Iran I expect them to hit back.

What is lost in this entire conversation is the simple fact that if we really wanted to use our full destructive force there would be no life above the microbe level in Afghanistan and Iraq, or any of the other countries we've "devastated" since the end of WWII.

The main reason the US - and by extension its subordinates in Europe - has a beef with Iran is because it has leadership Washington does not approve of. They have been bitter about 'losing' Iran after their stooge, Shah Pahlavi, was overthrown by the revolution of 1979. Whilst there may be some underlying bitterness about the hostages, the main source of consternation is the loss of control over Iran's enormous oil and gas reserves. For further reading I recommend the chapters on this episode in the textbook edited by David W. Lesch, The Middle East and the United States: a historical and political reassessment.

The Iran discussion is something of a digression in the context of this discussion, however, as I was merely using them as an example. The point is that the US government assassinates alleged terrorists who it claims present a threat to the United States. Applying this same rule to all would mean US politicians being fair game for Iranian hit squads. But, of course, applying the same standards to ourselves as we do others is almost unthinkable.

I can't even begin to credit the notion that the United States deserves praise for not committing genocide as opposed to just killing large numbers of civilians. The fact you have attempted to relativise US crimes in such a way tells its own story. It's very easy to be glib about the suffering of others when it's not your country being bombed or occupied.

 

[LSSBB]

This is irrational; a convenient way to dismiss the claims of someone you think should agree with you. If you believe Chomsky has written work such as Fateful Triangle, Manufacturing Consent & Failed States in order to obliquely defend the US government, then it goes some way to affirming my belief that truthers adhere only to dogma. It's incredibly disappointing you would dismiss a whole body of important dissident literature because he doesn't subscribe to your conspiracy theories.



Here you are, again, showing your ignorance. If you were familiar with his work beyond what he has to say about your dearly held conspiracy theories you would know he derides the term 'intellectual' and certainly does not self identify as one.



The main beef the US - and by extension its subordinates in Europe - has a beef with Iran is because it has leadership Washington does not approve of. They have been bitter about 'losing' Iran after their stooge, Shah Pahlavi, was overthrown by the revolution of 1979. Whilst there may be some underlying bitterness about the hostages, the main source of consternation is the loss of control over Iran's enormous oil and gas reserves. For further reading I recommend the chapters on this episode in the textbook edited by David W. Lesch, The Middle East and the United States: a historical and political reassessment.

The Iran discussion is something of a digression in the context of this discussion, however, as I was merely using them as an example. The point is that the US government assassinates alleged terrorists who it claims present a threat to the United States. Applying this same rule to all would mean US politicians being fair game for Iranian hit squads. But, of course, applying the same standards to ourselves as we do others is almost unthinkable.

I can't even begin to credit the notion that the United States deserves praise for not committing genocide as opposed to just killing large numbers of civilians. The fact you have attempted to relativise US crimes in such a way tells its own story. It's very easy to be glib about the suffering of others when it's not your country being bombed or occupied.

Your argument seems to anthropomorphize the US government. You need to see the US in terms of a republic, where components change on a 2, 4, and 6 year cycle based on a changing social dynamic, backed somewhat by key civil servants with limited career spans and military members who rotate in an out of posts every few years.

Therefore the US government cannot experience "bitterness" over an act that occurred over 30 years ago - and it can react to the use of Iran as a symbol in political debate of "not doing something we should do". Feel free to fill in the something, currently it centers on Iranian nuclear capabilities.

 

[dannyb]

Your argument seems to anthropomorphize the US government. You need to see the US in terms of a republic, where components change on a 2, 4, and 6 year cycle based on a changing social dynamic, backed somewhat by key civil servants with limited career spans and military members who rotate in an out of posts every few years.

Therefore the US government cannot experience "bitterness" over an act that occurred over 30 years ago - and it can react to the use of Iran as a symbol in political debate of "not doing something we should do". Feel free to fill in the something, currently it centers on Iranian nuclear capabilities.

Whilst individual members of the government change, the need to control Middle East (or Near East as it was known back then) oil goes back to the Eisenhower era. Declassified records show high level NSC meetings describe it as a 'stupendous source of strategic power'. It is a long term, ongoing strategic goal for the US to control Middle East oil reserves.

As for Iran's nuclear program, it is far from clear whether they are actually pursuing a nuclear weapon. The IAEA is certainly far from certain on the matter. It is my opinion that this provides a convenient pretext in order to oust a government that presents a challenge to US hegemony in the region. An opinion fairly well grounded given the way the US has the country surrounded by various military assets.

 

[LSSBB]

Whilst individual members of the government change, the need to control Middle East (or Near East as it was known back then) oil goes back to the Eisenhower era. Declassified records show high level NSC meetings describe it as a 'stupendous source of strategic power'. It is a long term, ongoing strategic goal for the US to control Middle East oil reserves.

As for Iran's nuclear program, it is far from clear whether they are actually pursuing a nuclear weapon. The IAEA is certainly far from certain on the matter. It is my opinion that this provides a convenient pretext in order to oust a government that presents a challenge to US hegemony in the region. An opinion fairly well grounded given the way the US has the country surrounded by various military assets.

There is a strategic goal to "maintain our sea lines of communication", and that goal is as subject to variances of the political winds as any other goal.

That's as far as I am willing to debate your post, I only brought up the nuclear program as an example of a political football currently being tossed about.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Chomsky is a classic hear no evil see no evil as far as his blood letting neocon brethren are concerned. Hence he tells us that 9/11 is in the past and it makes no sense to look back and contemplate the inconsistencies of the government's explanation of 9/11.

He realizes that the following type event will eventually convince the public that 9/11 was an inside job and there will be hell to pay.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...ngs-on-911-uncovering-ten-years-of-deception/

 

[carlitos]

Chomsky and his "neocon brethren." That's quite a unique perspective there.

 

[Vinny Shinblind]

Chomsky and his "neocon brethren." That's quite a unique perspective there.

"unique". Literally.

 

[beachnut]

... He realizes that the following type event will eventually convince the public that 9/11 was an inside job and there will be hell to pay.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...ngs-on-911-uncovering-ten-years-of-deception/

He realizes 911 truth is a fantasy made up by old nuts who have gone insane and can't figure out 911 given 12 years and the answers.

David Ray Griffin, Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, Niels Harrit, and others can't figure out 911 and they expose their ignorance and stupidity at a staged hearing trying to gain more cult members. 911 truth seems to be in a contest to be the most idiotic movement in history. Infinite failure in action.

Ten years have passed since the World Trade Center attacks of September 11, 2001, and there are still many unanswered questions surrounding that fateful day.

Nuts at the failed Toronto Hearings can't figure out 911 due to? Insanity, stupidity, or greed? Gage is greed, survival as he rakes in 400k/year fooling weak minded cult members into donating to an open ended plea for a "new" investigation. lol

911 remains a mystery for 911 truth followers...

Chomsky is a classic hear no evil see no evil as far as his blood letting neocon brethren are concerned.

And I thought Chomsky was a linguist, philosopher. How about his "blood letting leftist brethren", "blood letting left-wing brethren", "blood letting anarcho-syndicalist brethren", ??? neocon ??? what?
Like 911, Chomsky remains a mystery for 911 truth followers who failed to figure out 911 after many years.

 

[trustbutverify]

Chomsky and his "neocon brethren." That's quite a unique perspective there.

His "bloodletting" neocon brethren. Because you know how those "neo-cons" are.

 

[LSSBB]

His "bloodletting" neocon brethren. Because you know how those "neo-cons" are.

I wonder if Clayton thinks Chomsky is an Orthodox neo-con, a Connservative neo-con, or a Reform neo-con?

My apologies if I don't get the sectarian designations correct. Hopefully, Clayton as an evidently accomplished scholar of all things neo-con can figure it out.