Noam Chomsky - LIHOP is "conceivable"

[blackbear]

Chomsky Confronted on 9/11..Admits LIHOP is "conceivable"

A 9/11 activist recently confronted Noam Chomsky on his previous, well-publicized disparaging remarks about 9/11 truth. After spending several minutes repeating his tired arguments about the impossibility of 9/11 as an inside job, Chomsky then concedes that the notion that the Bush Administration knew of an impending attack and let it happen on purpose is "conceivable." Watch footage of the confrontation in the video player below:


Link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4QCUsRchbc

The video comes from a speaking engagement that venerated linguist and political commentator Noam Chomsky was giving at the First Unitarian Church of Portland on October 2, 2009. In his question, 9/11 activist Mark Abell first details the historical precedents of the Reichstag fire and FDR's foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor to establish that false flags and LIHOP events have been used in the past to justify warmongering. Then he asks why the notion of 9/11 as an inside job is such an "inconceivable idea" for Chomsky to a round of applause from the audience.

Chomsky then launches into a diatribe against the notion of a 9/11 inside job before bizarrely declaring the Bush Administration "absolved" of the crimes of 9/11 because it would have been "senseless" for them to use their CIA-created, DIA protected, State Department handled and White House sanctioned Sunni terrorists to carry out an attack they openly called for that Chomsky himself admits they benefited from. He then states that it is "conceivable" that the administration knew about an attack ahead of time and let it happen, but adds dismissively that he doesn't know of any evidence for the idea.

It would be truly surprising if Chomsky did not know of any of the evidence that the administration knew specific details of the plot ahead of time. Aside from well-covered issues like the Presidential Daily Briefing of August 6, 2001 (immortalized in this moment from the 9/11 Commission hearings), there is the still-unresolved issue of the 9/11 insider trading, the sworn testimony of FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, the information provided by FBI informant Randy Glass, and literally hundreds of other pieces of evidence that directly demonstrate foreknowledge of administration officials about the 9/11 attacks. But perhaps Mr. Chomsky has not yet seen this information.

Despite seeming to be singularly uninformed on the relevant names, dates, figures and facts surrounding the issue of government complicity in 9/11, Chomsky apparently sees no intellectual dishonesty in calling this evidence "outlandish" while maintaining that Osama Bin Laden is most likely the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks despite the fact that no solid evidence has ever been presented to suggest such a thing. Of course, the issue of Chomsky's intellectual dishonesty on 9/11 is by no means new. The Corbett Report released a two-part documentary last year entitled "Noam Chomsky: Manufacturing Dissent" which painstakingly details how Chomsky's 9/11 arguments are dishonest and inconsistent:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hPP3xQtTfc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NdWiCPrOyI

Abell must be commended for using a focused, contextualized question to get Chomsky to go further than before on the possibility that we are being lied to about 9/11. One can only hope that others will take up this example to continue the work of confronting prominent politicians, intellectuals and decision makers about the lies of 9/11. Only by doing so can we supply the definitive answer to Chomsky's infamous two word dismissal of 9/11 truth: "who cares?"

http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20091105_chomsky_confronted.htm

[outsider]

A leaflet distriibuted by myself and another 9/11 stalwart at his recent London talks reads (in part - the rest of the leaflet is jam-packed with 9/11 Truth info and sites):

CHOMSKY VISIT TO LONDON UNI OCT. 2009.

Students, academics, comrades, here's a chance to defend Truth!
Ask Chomsky:

1. about 9/11 (he claims it would destroy the left to expend energy on it)

2. about JFK (he claims Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone assassin)

3. about the Council on Foreign Relations, Tripartite Commission and the Bilderberg Group (he dismisses them as 'nothing organizations)

4. about the 2004 US elections (he reckons they weren't rigged)

There has to be a problem when Chomsky and other left 'luminaries'
ignore the most pivotal event of modern times, 9/11, for fear it will 'destroy the left'.

Traditionally, students have been at the forefront of protest against wars, tyranny & government 'cover-ups'. Wake up, Class of 2009 and do your stuff! Please don't just meekly lap up what gurus like Chomsky dish out.
They're what are called 'gatekeepers', guarding the information those in power don't want you to know. At least make him explain his views. He's
here to be challenged by the UK's brightest minds, not just worshipped and adored.

SEEKING OUT AND PROPAGATING THE TRUTH ABOUT 9/11 IS OUR BEST HOPE OF STOPPING THE WAR CRIMINALS IN THEIR TRACKS AND GETTING BACK OUR CITIZENS' RIGHTS.

If anyone would like help setting up a 9/11 Truth Group, please get in touch with us. London 9/11 Truth group (see over)

[Wakeymedia]

(G)Noam - you are SUCH a disgusting shill it is really beyond words.

[blackbear]

ALK... comments..

I used to ADORE Noam Chomsky. Now I just wonder whether he sold out or was owned all along. For the record, I lean toward the former, but I'm willing to be convinced either way.

Here are a few things that have prompted me to wonder:

1) Chomsky, the brilliant, indefatigable, meticulous researcher and analyst, said that whether OBL and "al Qaeda" were behind the 9/11 attacks doesn't matter;

2) Chomsky insists that Israel is merely a patsie of the big, bad American empire (has compared Israel to El Salvador and Guatemala) and refuses to consider any evidence of the contrary;

3) Chomsky still insists, despite all the evidence, that Iraq was invaded at the instigation of American big oil;

4) Chomsky utterly discounts the power of the zionist lobby and refuses to discuss the issue; he always points the finger at impersonal, amorphous entities like "American Empire", but inexplicably refuses to examine the role of, say, Congress or the mechanisms by which candidates for any higher political office who are not sufficiently subservient to Israeli/zionist interests are systematically weeded out;

5) Chomsky refuses to support or even join the growing movement for Divestment, Boycott and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel;

6) Chomsky has almost totally ignored the ongoing, relentless zionist campaign to get America to attack Iran;

To sum up, Chomsky has done an excellent job of exposing the damage caused by American and Israeli crimes, thereby garnering huge credibility for himself as a Leftist Guru; but at the same time he has worked hard to deflect questions about specifically who is drawing up the plans for these crimes, and why, and worked even harder to derail any serious effort to stop those crimes by measures such as boycott or divestment, or even war crimes prosecutions. Instead, he recommends that people limit their actions to ineffectual things like writing letters to their Congress members and participating in demos.

That is pretty much the textbook definition of a 'gatekeeper'.

For a much more thorough examination of Chomsky's bizarre blind spots re: Israel/Palestine, see this essay by Jeffrey Blankfort (who elsewhere, by the way, denounces Chomsky's uncharacteristically stupid and self-contradicting stance on 9/11).

Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict

http://www.leftcurve.org/LC29WebPages/Chomsky.html

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=25778&postdays=0&pos torder=asc&start=15

[John White]

My own take on Chomsky is that he spent decades of his life working for what he saw as social progress: exposing the dominance of the corporations and the dirty tricks of propaganda in governing the masses beneath their conscious awareness, and promoting engagement with democracy. No problems there

Then 9/11 happened and it blew his world away: same as with many people

I see his 9/11 truth denial as based in trying to hold his own inner paradigm together, coupled with a keen awareness that the position he built to speak from resulted in him having serious enemies who would love to drag him down if he started having "wild" views... added to which an awareness of the wildness of some sections of 9/11 truth and the dire accusations being thrown against him... he's hardly a young man, trying to keep the validity of his world view together, very human reasons for him stubbornly digging in his heels and refusing to budge... no paycheck for shilling required... but a lot of bile thrown his way for not being what some truthseekers wanted him to be.. objectively that means frustration with Chomsky for not being an asset to the 9/11 Truth cause. But isn't the truth that he never had to be? No-one has to be. Freedom has to mean something

Why not take his positive admission of LIHOP for what it is worth? Sure he couold go further and come to understand or even admit he was wrong... but that's his choice. Other's have gone further, the message is there for those who will listen... and the good in the decades of work Chomsky has produced is still there too

[TonyGosling]

Yes John, Entirely agree that all the shills will have been set on him, crammed full of hate and pretending to be us.

[outsider]

We don't have the luxury of enough time for the likes of Chomsky and Galloway to 'see the light'; apart from which, I don't believe they want to.

http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=8239

[TonyGosling]

But what of the charge so often made that he's an "anti-American" figure who can only see the crimes of his own government while ignoring the crimes of others around the world? "Anti-Americanism is a pure totalitarian concept," he retorts. "The very notion is idiotic. Of course you don't deny other crimes, but your primary moral responsibility is for your own actions, which you can do something about. It's the same charge which was made in the Bible by King Ahab, the epitome of evil, when he demanded of the prophet Elijah: why are you a hater of Israel? He was identifying himself with society and criticism of the state with criticism of society."
It's a telling analogy. Chomsky is a studiedly modest man who would balk at any such comparison. But in the Biblical tradition of the conflict between prophets and kings, there's not the slightest doubt which side he represents.

'US foreign policy is straight out of the mafia'
Noam Chomsky is the west's most prominent critic of US imperialism, yet he is rarely interviewed in the mainstream media. Seumas Milne meets him
The Guardian, Saturday 7 November 2009

Noam Chomsky is the closest thing in the English-speaking world to an intellectual superstar. A philosopher of language and political campaigner of towering academic reputation, who as good as invented modern linguistics, he is entertained by presidents, addresses the UN general assembly and commands a mass international audience. When he spoke in London last week, thousands of young people battled for tickets to attend his lectures, followed live on the internet across the globe, as the 80-year-old American linguist fielded questions from as far away as besieged Gaza.

But the bulk of the mainstream western media doesn't seem to have noticed. His books sell in their hundreds of thousands, he is mobbed by students as a celebrity, but he is rarely reported or interviewed in the US outside radical journals and websites. The explanation, of course, isn't hard to find. Chomsky is America's most prominent critic of the US imperial role in the world, which he has used his erudition and standing to expose and excoriate since Vietnam.

Like the English philosopher Bertrand Russell, who spoke out against western-backed wars until his death at the age of 97, Chomsky has lent his academic prestige to a relentless campaign against his own country's barbarities abroad – though in contrast to the aristocratic Russell, Chomsky is the child of working class Jewish refugees from Tsarist pogroms. Not surprisingly, he has been repaid with either denunciation or, far more typically, silence. Whereas a much slighter figure such as the Atlanticist French philosopher Bernard Henri-Lévy is lionised at home and abroad, Chomsky and his genuine popularity are ignored.

Indeed, his books have been banned from the US prison library in Guantánamo. You'd hardly need a clearer example of his model of how dissenting views are filtered out of the western media, set out in his 1990's book Manufacturing Consent, than his own case. But as Chomsky is the first to point out, the marginalisation of opponents of western state policy is as nothing compared to the brutalities suffered by those who challenge states backed by the US and its allies in the Middle East.

We meet in a break between a schedule of lectures and talks that would be punishing for a man half his age. At the podium, Chomsky's style is dry and low-key, as he ranges without pausing for breath from one region and historical conflict to another, always buttressed with a barrage of sources and quotations, often from US government archives and leaders themselves.

But in discussion he is warm and engaged, only hampered by slight deafness. He has only recently started travelling again, he explains, after a three-year hiatus while he was caring for his wife and fellow linguist, Carol, who died from cancer last December. Despite their privilege, his concentrated exposure to the continuing injustices and exorbitant expense of the US health system has clearly left him angry. Public emergency rooms are "uncivilised, there is no health care", he says, and the same kind of corporate interests that drive US foreign policy are also setting the limits of domestic social reform.

All three schemes now being considered for Barack Obama's health care reform are "to the right of the public, which is two to one in favour of a public option. But the New York Times says that has no political support, by which they mean from the insurance and pharmaceutical companies." Now the American Petroleum Institute is determined to "follow the success of the insurance industry in killing off health reform," Chomsky says, and do the same to hopes of genuine international action at next month's Copenhagen climate change summit. Only the forms of power have changed since the foundation of the republic, he says, when James Madison insisted that the new state should "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority".

Chomsky supported Obama's election campaign in swing states, but regards his presidency as representing little more than a "shift back towards the centre" and a striking foreign policy continuity with George Bush's second administration. "The first Bush administration was way off the spectrum, America's prestige sank to a historic low and the people who run the country didn't like that." But he is surprised so many people abroad, especially in the third world, are disappointed at how little Obama has changed. "His campaign rhetoric, hope and change, was entirely vacuous. There was no principled criticism of the Iraq war: he called it a strategic blunder. And Condoleezza Rice was black – does that mean she was sympathetic to third world problems?"

The veteran activist has described the US invasion of Afghanistan as "one of the most immoral acts in modern history", which united the jihadist movement around al-Qaida, sharply increased the level of terrorism and was "perfectly irrational – unless the security of the population is not the main priority". Which, of course, Chomsky believes, it is not. "States are not moral agents," he says, and believes that now that Obama is escalating the war, it has become even clearer that the occupation is about the credibility of Nato and US global power.

This is a recurrent theme in Chomsky's thinking about the American empire. He argues that since government officials first formulated plans for a "grand area" strategy for US global domination in the early 1940s, successive administrations have been guided by a "godfather principle, straight out of the mafia: that defiance cannot be tolerated. It's a major feature of state policy." "Successful defiance" has to be punished, even where it damages business interests, as in the economic blockade of Cuba – in case "the contagion spreads".

The gap between the interests of those who control American foreign policy and the public is also borne out, in Chomsky's view, by the US's unwavering support for Israel and "rejectionism" of the two-state solution effectively on offer for 30 years. That's not because of the overweening power of the Israel lobby in the US, but because Israel is a strategic and commercial asset which underpins rather than undermines US domination of the Middle East. "Even in the 1950s, President Eisenhower was concerned about what he called a campaign of hatred of the US in the Arab world, because of the perception on the Arab street that it supported harsh and oppressive regimes to take their oil."

Half a century later, corporations like Lockheed Martin and Exxon Mobil are doing fine, he says: America's one-sided role in the Middle East isn't harming their interests, whatever risks it might bring for anyone else.


Chomsky is sometimes criticised on the left for encouraging pessimism or inaction by emphasising the overwhelming weight of US power – or for failing to connect his own activism with labour or social movements on the ground. He is certainly his own man, holds some idiosyncratic views (I was startled, for instance, to hear him say that Vietnam was a strategic victory for the US in southeast Asia, despite its humiliating 1975 withdrawal) and has drawn flak for defending freedom of speech for Holocaust deniers. He describes himself as an anarchist or libertarian socialist, but often sounds more like a radical liberal – which is perhaps why he enrages more middle-of-the-road American liberals who don't appreciate their views being taken to the logical conclusion.

But for an octogenarian who has been active on the left since the 1930s, Chomsky sounds strikingly upbeat. He's a keen supporter of the wave of progressive change that has swept South America in the past decade ("one of the liberal criticisms of Bush is that he didn't pay enough attention to Latin America – it was the best thing that ever happened to Latin America"). He also believes there are now constraints on imperial power which didn't exist in the past: "They couldn't get away with the kind of chemical warfare and blanket B52 bombing that Kennedy did," in the 1960s. He even has some qualified hopes for the internet as a way around the monopoly of the corporate-dominated media.

But what of the charge so often made that he's an "anti-American" figure who can only see the crimes of his own government while ignoring the crimes of others around the world? "Anti-Americanism is a pure totalitarian concept," he retorts. "The very notion is idiotic. Of course you don't deny other crimes, but your primary moral responsibility is for your own actions, which you can do something about. It's the same charge which was made in the Bible by King Ahab, the epitome of evil, when he demanded of the prophet Elijah: why are you a hater of Israel? He was identifying himself with society and criticism of the state with criticism of society."

It's a telling analogy. Chomsky is a studiedly modest man who would balk at any such comparison. But in the Biblical tradition of the conflict between prophets and kings, there's not the slightest doubt which side he represents.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/07/noam-chomsky-us-foreign-po licy

[kbo234]

It is nauseating that this dissembling creep continues to be given serious attention.

He is their boy.

The worst kind of gatekeeper.

So..........he, belatedly, realises LIHOP is "conceivable".

How can it be that one of the most creative and brilliant minds on the planet is so lacking imagination and even intelligence on this issue?....

Doh! That's why.......blimey, why didn't we realise this yonks ago?

[insidejob]

I used to dismiss the arguments that Chomsky was a deep cover CIA agent and felt that his 911 position arose from his Marxist analysis. I'm not that sure now.

Hawks Cafe has been doing some very interesting 911 research. They identify a MIT professors Chomsky and John Deutsch who work together at the Centre for Collective Intelligence. Trouble is, they think it was involved in 911 and Deutch is a former CIA director.


http://www.hawkscafe.com/080706.html

[TonyGosling]

Chomsky and Deutsch do not 'Work Together'. They are chalk and cheese.
I don't doubt it's mindless accusations like this that have put Chomsky off the 9/11 Truth movement. He's a key person the CIA & other perps have targeted and made vast efforts to 'turn'.
Anyone who takes a pop at Mr. Chomsky hasn't bothered to look at who he is and what he's said and done.
Bet you didn't read the Seamus Milne article.

[insidejob]

It may be that Chomsky has not in fact worked in partnership with and together with on a provable project with Deutsch. According to Hawks Cafe, the Centre for Collective Intelligence is a digital reality. Nonetheless, it provides some circumstantial evidence of the claims about Chomsky that people have made. The other circumstantial evidence is Rockefeller, FOrd financing of Z Magazine to which Chomsky contributes.

Obviously, the other circumstantial evidence is his refusal to deal with the globalist elite. He focuses on the US and capitalist corporations, which the globalists want to change anyway.

Chomsky's critiques are on the mark. I see no evidence of deliberate distortion of lies on his part. It may be that he would lose his popularity among the Left if he starts straying into conspiracy theory. Or it may be that he is a CIA-supported, Left gatekeeper. If Marx could be a British intelligence asset as Tarpley has argued then Chomsky could also be similar. And if any of Hawks Cafe's allegations about Chomsky are true, then it is worse than his rejection of conspiracy.

The Guardian article doesn't answer these questions.

[TonyGosling]

Not 'may be' but is.
With meaningless comparisons like that no wonder he has given up on 911 'truthers'.
Try and look at the facts - don't force the facts into your world view


[quote="insidejob"]It may be that Chomsky has not in fact worked in partnership with and together with on a provable project with Deutsch. /quote]

[insidejob]

I think Hawks Cafe has done more research on Chomsky, Centre for Collective Intelligence and 911 than both of us have. If you know of any critiques of this work then I'd be happy to have a look at it.

IF ou have any evidence that Chomsky can't be a Left gatekeeper or deep cover agent for CIA/Mossad/Rockefeller or whatever, then I'd be happy to look at it. Guardian articles don't count.

[outsider]

[Frazzel]

Blackbear writes: '9/11 activist Mark Abell first details the historical precedents of the Reichstag fire and FDR's foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor to establish that false flags and LIHOP events have been used in the past to justify warmongering. Then he asks why the notion of 9/11 as an inside job is such an "inconceivable idea" for Chomsky to a round of applause from the audience'

Yes its good someone pinned chomsky down on 911 but i think that mentioning the reichstag fire isnt the best example of false flag terrorism as people can say that it was hitler and the nazi regime so what do you expect from them? I think its better to mention Operation Northwoods, and Operation Galdio and their terror tactics particularly in Italy and Greece. Also the USS liberty and USS Cole.
Lets not forget the suspicious weaponised anthrax in the post just weeks after 911.

[Andrew.]

[kbo234]

[jazds]

The idea that he's a controlled gatekeeper isn't entirely outlandish. Read the book Conjuring Hitler - How Britain and America made the Third Reich (a very well researched book by an academic in political economies). There were a lot of such people then, the idea that there wouldn't be now is nuts. Clearly the guy is unable to see the wood through the tree, that either has to be on purpose or through some per-conditioning.

The book also makes it clear that 911 wasn't the start of psychopathic megalomaniac control freaks pulling strings, it was just the continuation of a long process.

The one thing I would agree with Chomsky on in regards to 9/11 is that, if it was an inside job, the people responsible would have to be certifiably insane. Isn't that the point? Certifiably insane people, running our world is only going to lead us to one place. We know it and I suspect they know it, but can't help themselves!

[acrobat74]

[outsider]

[outsider]

@ acrobat74: 'Personally, I think he's irrelevant for the specific topic: too old and has too much to lose.'

He may well have 'too much to lose'; same could be said for anyone who stands up to tyranny, be it in Hitler's Germany, Mao's China, Stalin's Russia, Pinochet's Chile or anywhere else.
But as to his being 'irrelevant', I cannot understand how you reach that conclusion. He has a massive following among students and the 'Left' (especially in the States).
If he were to start to investigate (NOT just take our word) 9/11, and to openly discuss it, it would make a world of difference to our cause.
Even if he STILL failed to see the obvious, that would not be a problem; his obvious myopeia would be apparent for all to see, and we would have got the attention of tens of thousands of students.

WE DO NOT WANT CHOMSKY OR ANY ONE ELSE TO BLINDLY ACCEPT OUR VIEWPOINT; JUST TO INVESTIGATE AND DISCUSS OPENLY THE ISSUE.

Another point, of course; he also has myopeia re Federal Reserve, CFR, Tripartite Commission, Bilderberg etc.

[acrobat74]

[TonyGosling]

A few lessons for the 'rude' browbeaters from Cindy Sheehan
Bless Her


Link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQqRbB3VkUg

[outsider]

I've always supported Cindy; glad she's come so far in her understanding; bit further to go! (And yes, I's working on it!).
Great that she's visited Venezuela and met Chavez; this will help to open US eyes to what is happening, and what is planned for that area.

[outsider]

[satya]

Very surprised to hear no mention of the new homeland security law on homegrown terrorist act. this act stops any outspoken person (such as noam chomsky) from declaring the real truths.

[outsider]

Global Research article by Ali Abunimah:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19261

[TonyGosling]

what a waste of brain cells having a go at Chomsky is

Israel prevents Thinker Noam Chomsky from entering WB
Sunday, 16 May 2010 21:58 Added by PT Editor Omar Ghraieb
http://www.paltelegraph.com/breaking-news/6045-israel-prevents-thinker -naom-chomsky-from-entering-wb

Gaza, May 16, (Pal Telegraph) The Israeli occupation authorities Prevented today the thinker and American scientist, Noam Chomsky, from entering the Palestinian territories through the Allenby crossing. The MP, Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi, Secretary General of the Palestinian National Initiative Movement, condemned Israel’s prevention of Dr. Noam Chomsky from entering the Palestinian territories after being held by the Israeli occupation authorities on the bridge for five hours and kept him away from Jordan. Barghouthi said that the Israeli occupation authorities informed Chomsky their decision to prevent him comes from the highest level in Israel and the Ministry of Interior affairs specifically because of his views and positions and his visit to the Palestinian territories and his intent to conduct a lecture at Bir Zeit University, stressing that this arbitrary procedure illustrates the nature of Israel's racism, which didn't spare even a person like Chomsky...................
http://www.paltelegraph.com/breaking-news/6045-israel-prevents-thinker -naom-chomsky-from-entering-wb

[cem]

.

from the archives:


http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_378.shtml


excerpts from: A one-way bombardment called Gulf War

by B. J. Sabri, 31 December 2005