Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:41 pm Post subject:
Get it from the horses mouth. I went on about Mexico because he had written an article about South America. The following is his brief reply, followed by my email to him:- :- 'What's holding me back is that I find the evidence cited unconvincing. If you feel otherwise, by all means devote yourself to that. I think there are far higher priorities.
NC'
----- Original Message -----
From: (by way of Noam Chomsky <chomsky@mit.edu>)
To: Noam Chomsky
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 10:16 AM
Subject: South America
Hi, Mr. Chomsky, I just read an abridged article of yours on the net, but when I went to 'comments' they were all totally unrelated: Ghost in the Machine, or more likely State interference. Though you have a tremendous standing on the left, you do sometimes fail to bite the bullet. I don't know if you know, but Joel R. Poinsett, a US Secretary of War, introduced Freemasonry to Mexico. Three known Presidents have since been in power in Mexico, Porfino Diaz, Abelardo Rodriguez and Pascual Ortiz Rubio who have been 33* Scottish Rite Masons (the worst kind!). Given that Gen. Mac Arthur opened the first Masonic Lodge in Occupied Japan, and Kemal Ataturk was initiated into Masonry at a Lodge in Salonika, and King Hussein was a Mason, and one of the three-man-Junta in Argentina was a secret member of the Italian P2 Lodge (along with the Commander of the Argentine First Army) it seems there is good cause to believe that the US's 'Empire' was brought about largely by subverting other nation's military establishments via Freemasonry (and I almost forgot, Mussolini had outlawed the Craft, but the OSS pressured the weak and impoverished Italian authoritiies to bring it back. Back to the New World Order; why on earth don't you investigate 9/11 as a 'potential' Inside Job?? You haven't been afraid to front the 'Empire' previously; what's holding you back now? Paul, London
Last edited by outsider on Sun May 25, 2008 9:30 am; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 7:53 am Post subject: Noam Chomsky 'struts his stuff'
Noam shows the world what he's made of (but he did give a good report to Daniele Ganser's 'Gladio' book):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCnoXJhITow _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 8:46 pm Post subject: Noam Chomsky exposed?
From Kevin Barrett's newsletter:
After weeks of trying to be nice to Noam Chomsky, a man I used to admire, I have grown fed up with his BS. Check out my new article Noam Chomsky Does Not Want You to Read This, followed by the complete and unaltered available email record of our correspondence, at http://www.barrettforcongress.us/chomsky.htm _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 8:49 pm Post subject: Re: Bill O'Reilly challenged to 9/11 debate; dunking for los
outsider wrote:
Da great ('Wild'?) Bill O'Reilly challenged to a 9/11 debate, with the loser agreeing to be pushed into Boston harbour? Far fetched? Nope, it's the real dope. Kevin Barrett has challenged him to just such a debate; lets see if he, like Chomsky, chickens out (though Chomsky wasn't going to be dunked):
Noam Chomsky exposed:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=118733#118733 _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Joined: 04 Apr 2006 Posts: 489 Location: Manchester
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 10:23 pm Post subject:
i wonder if anyone's ever asked chomsky what he thinks about an ex president of italy saying 'its common knowledge amongst intelligence agencies that 9/11 was a CIA mossad operation'? _________________ "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 1:24 am Post subject:
not at all clever publishing this sort of private correspondance
achieves nothing
entirely counter productive and unethical utterly divisive
I'm disgusted
Clearly a violation of Chomsky's right to privacy and designed to make him hate the 911 Truth movement forever
If I were him I'd prosecute dimwitted Barratt
Go after the perpetrators of 911 not Noam Chomsky because he doesn't agree with you self-centred Barratt
Quote:
Not to be mysterious, my wife is severely ill, needs constant attention, and I can only schedule when proper home care is available, not after 5.
Thanks for the reference to the journal. I looked through the article, but it can't temper my views about the collapse of the buildings just for reasons of logic: I have never expressed any views on the topic, and have none. I do not have the expert knowledge of civil-mechanical engineering and the structure of the buildings to investigate the arguments presented, and do not intend to spend the enormous amount of time and effort required to attain it. Therefore I treat the matter exactly as I (and scientists generally) treat other technical matters beyond their specialist knowledge:
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 5:55 am Post subject:
TonyGosling wrote:
not at all clever publishing this sort of private correspondance
achieves nothing
entirely counter productive and unethical utterly divisive
I'm disgusted
Clearly a violation of Chomsky's right to privacy and designed to make him hate the 911 Truth movement forever
If I were him I'd prosecute dimwitted Barratt
Go after the perpetrators of 911 not Noam Chomsky because he doesn't agree with you self-centred Barratt
Quote:
Not to be mysterious, my wife is severely ill, needs constant attention, and I can only schedule when proper home care is available, not after 5.
Thanks for the reference to the journal. I looked through the article, but it can't temper my views about the collapse of the buildings just for reasons of logic: I have never expressed any views on the topic, and have none. I do not have the expert knowledge of civil-mechanical engineering and the structure of the buildings to investigate the arguments presented, and do not intend to spend the enormous amount of time and effort required to attain it. Therefore I treat the matter exactly as I (and scientists generally) treat other technical matters beyond their specialist knowledge:
Chomsky's wife is terminally ill; 1.2 million people have been terminally removed since 'Coalition' invasion and occupation of Iraq.
I believe brave Truth campaigner Kevin Barrett would welcome a court case, to get the issue of 9/11 more publicity. I believe the truth of 9/11 is infinitely more important than Chomsky's 'privacy'.
KEVIN BARRETT IS DOING A GRAND JOB; HOW ON EARTH YOU CAN CALL KEVIN BARRETT 'DIMWITTED'; HE IS ONE OF OUR TRUTHER GIANTS.
AND OF COURSE HE DOESN'T BERATE CHOMSKY BECAUSE HE DOESN'T AGREE WITH HIM, BUT BECAUSE HE SCATHINGLY ATTACKS US WITHOUT ENGAGING IN RESEARCH AND DEBATE. _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
I completly agree Tony, Barratt has acted completly disgracefully in publishing these private letters. What's more it is him who quickly descends into an argument when Chomsky remains polite throughout.
An embarrasing moment for us all since he chose to write as a spokes person for the Truth Movement and not just as himself. Therefore, bullying Chomsky, who is tending to an ill loved one, in all of our names...
Noam Chomsky has done incredible work in exposing the machinations of the military industrial complex.
He was the precursor along with another hated figure (by some) Michael Moore.
If it wasn't for these guys, I'd of been sitting on my arse worrying about the mundane in life and not about the massive injustice going on around the world. Including 9/11 which is after all a small part of the bigger picture.
Some people are way to quick to scream 'Gatekepper' and 'Shill', just because another doesn't share their argument.
Joined: 04 Apr 2006 Posts: 489 Location: Manchester
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 9:04 am Post subject: Re: Counterproductive having a go at Chomsky
TonyGosling wrote:
commanderson wrote:
his performance these days shows him up as an intelligence shill rather than intellectual. Why no hecklers leapt upon him for these statments is beyond me
It's that intolerant, angry approach which has probably driven him from seriously looking into 911.
Anyway like I say non 911 sceptics are entitled to their own views - all of them.
i totally agree with this.
i have some respect for chomsky. he has been brave enough to speak up about many important truths in the past.
It is very unfortunate he won't look at the evidence surrounding 9/11. but lets not give him reason to dismiss us!
some of the stuff kevin barrett said to him in that series of emails was really dissapointing. _________________ "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 9:16 am Post subject:
outsider wrote:
Chomsky's wife is terminally ill; 1.2 million people have been terminally removed since 'Coalition' invasion and occupation of Iraq.
I believe brave Truth campaigner Kevin Barrett would welcome a court case, to get the issue of 9/11 more publicity. I believe the truth of 9/11 is infinitely more important than Chomsky's 'privacy'.
Outsider, No, Chomsky's not attacking us here 'we' are attacking him. Or frustrated Barratt is.
The 1.2 million murders in Iraq do not diminish Chomsky's wife's suffering one iota. What a mean-spirited approach, I'm disappointed with you.
Chomsky's done his bit, now turn your fire on the real doers of evil. You will never, never, never browbeat him or anyone else o this blanet into agreeing with us.
I get the impression this is what happens when campaigners like Barratt get bored or when their research hits a dead end.
Sit down, take a deep breath, press play... and decide whether the man who inspired this deserves to have his private life circulated to the world by a '911 Truther'. No wonder he's not interested in 911 Truth.
Anyway - just to remind us, this is the film that brought about the resurgent interest in Chomsky over the last day or so... this is the sort of peron we should be reasoning with and persuading. Not publishing details of his private life.
outsider wrote:
Noam shows the world what he's made of (but he did give a good report to Daniele Ganser's 'Gladio' book):
Its fanatacism, whether religious/political or otherwise that turns people away from things like this.
Start shouting and bullying people into believing something and they all assume you are a raving lunatic.
People will come to an idea in their own time, as long as you present ed the evidence then the choice ultimately is theirs.
forcing the point just turns people away regardless of the content/truth of your message.
Its people like this and we all know of many more who make it hard for the average joe to consider 9/11 as anything more than just the official account.
its ironic that the 9/11 truth movement and its clearly endemic ugly disposition has led me to respecting chomsky and jon ronson more than i did ever before - despite my disagreements with them about 9/11.
this cause is lost - all thanks to idiots like barrett.
Totally agree. Barrett has completely disrespected Chomsky's privacy and wishes, and gives the truth movement a bad name.
He should apologise. But its too late really, it's out there....
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 6:40 pm Post subject:
The last time I saw Barrett was MC'ing the Fetzer/Wood 911 disinfo show, with a brief mic grabbing interjection by a deranged looking Webfairy.
I can't imagine how anyone could think ol' Kev has the best interests of the campaign at heart after that, and now this. God save us from the zealots. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Barrett has done a terrible thing in publishing his correspondence with Noam Chomsky. I am appalled. I do not want to be even remotely identified with this appalling behaviour or such a dishonorable individual. He is a disgrace. I hope one day he recognises the shame he has brought upon himself and the interests he claims to represent.
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 9:03 pm Post subject:
An intelligent, totally committed Muslim 9/11 Truther, standing for Congress, openly challenging all and sundry to debate 9/11, putting out a regular radio show, and all you lot seem to want to do is bleat about poor old Chomsky's privacy.
There are enough of you, it seems, to form a '9/11 Truther's Chomsky Fan Club'; I'll keep cheerleading for a real hero, Kevin Barrett. _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
An intelligent, totally committed Muslim 9/11 Truther, standing for Congress, openly challenging all and sundry to debate 9/11, putting out a regular radio show, and all you lot seem to want to do is bleat about poor old Chomsky's privacy.
There are enough of you, it seems, to form a '9/11 Truther's Chomsky Fan Club'; I'll keep cheerleading for a real hero, Kevin Barrett.
An idiotic religious nutjob who deserves no votes either metaphorical or literal, tilting at windmills and talking, ultimately, to himself. A betrayer of trust and through that action, a coward.
It's all very well but we can't keep bashing on about the govt/NWO etc taking our freedoms ie right to privacy etc etc and not be seen to practise what we preach. It is about principle - it is actually wrong to invade someone's privacy, whether or not they are your friend or enemy. Barrett in that respect is being a hypocrite.
Outsider: just to be clear - I personally would not call myself a "fan" of Chomsky, although I do appreciate works such as Manufacturing Consent and I was very impressed by the research he did at the start of his career into language acquisition in children.
It is not that I am rushing to defend a hero of mine or anything remotely like that. It is simply the case that Barrett's actions are indefensible. I would feel the same way if he had behaved this disgracefully towards anyone he was in correspondence with.
Unfortunately Barrett has not only defecated over himself. The stink will continue to hang around in forums like this one, partly because people like you are impressed by the texture of what he has done.
Joined: 09 Feb 2007 Posts: 630 Location: Manchester
Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 10:34 am Post subject:
jomper wrote:
Because he's a respectful, polite and genuine person - entirely unlike his correspondent.
Is it heresy to suggest the alternative that he may be an evil rat and that everything you think you know about Chomsky is a carefully constructed illusion? _________________ Simon - http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
But purely within the limited frame of the email correspondence between Barrett and Chomsky that Barrett is has so disgracefully published, it's perfectly clear to me who the rat is.
I don't think anyone could argue that Chomsky's contributions to linguistics have been anything less than brilliant, either. Granted, that was a long time ago, but he deserves respect purely on those grounds if not on any other.
would it be a good idea to send emails apologising for Barrett's actions on behalf of the truth movement? or would that further twist the knife of such an indecent breach of privacy?
Barrett has always struck me as immature and out of his depth.
it makes it worse that there is really nothing unreasonable in Chomsky's discourse with Barrett.
sucks to share this movement with such incompetent and insensitive individuals.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
