Why does the Left fear the 9/11 debate? Chomsky, Galloway et

[conspiracy analyst]

This is a question which should immediately arouse interest. Whilst the Left are the most vocal supporters of the anti-Bush Blair holy alliance, they seem to avoid the debate on 9/11 as if they are meeting devils. The question is why?

In contrast to the millions of people who no longer believe in the official story we have a unique situation where the organised representatives of the Left, not the people that go on the demos, or sign the petititions, but their spokespersons, eg. A. Murray, Galloway, Rees etc are now faced with the task of being the most ardent defenders of the Bush line on 9/11.

Selectively they choose to brand everybody with the brush of Ickes lizards, or the followers of Elvis who believe he is still alive. This is a clever trick which creates a wall between their most ardent supporters and the 9/11 truth movement.

People unable to debate are frightened of the issues. Galloway being a politician for most of his life seems to have taken it on board to go on the attack after initially presenting the issue of 9/11. This leaves us with what his role actually is. The following article clarifies what another spokesperson for the Left in America is and what he stands for.

Would it not be possible to send out a challenge to the STWC for a debate on the issue, or to Galloway on his radio show?


CHOMSKY FEARS 9/11 DEBATE
When questioned about his stance on the 9/11 issue, Chomsky timidly regurgitates the official line by saying that the version we are force-fed by the mainstream media is "pretty much what happened. He claims that he hasn't seen any "credible evidence" to suggest otherwise

It's all fine and good that Mr. Chomsky confronts Israel for its phony justification for mass murder in Lebanon [ http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/09/345826.shtml ]-- an obvious attempt by him to regain the trust of the anti-war movement, which is finally embracing the 9/11 Truth movement -- but let us *NEVER FORGET* where he stands on the most important issue of our time: the state-terror apparatus that is plunging the world into a totalitarian fascist nightmare.

When questioned on Dr. Hesham Tillawi's online video program about his stance on the 9/11 issue, Chomsky timidly regurgitates the official line by saying that the version we are force-fed by the mainstream media is "pretty much what happened", with 19 Arab hijackers responsible for the planning and execution of the attacks. He claims that he hasn't seen any "credible evidence" to suggest otherwise.
[ http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5515995256268661504 ]

At this point in the interview, the informed viewer and reader of his work will ask: "Where has Chomsky been for the last five years? Has he not heard of the work of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, particularly the work of engineer Dr. Judy Wood, physicist Dr. Stephen Jones, philosopher Dr. James Fetzer and theologian Dr. David Griffin? Has he not read about Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's appeal to the world for an investigation into 9/11?"

CHOMSKY’S LACK OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS 9/11 POSITION

How is it possible that he hasn’t “seen any credible evidence” when the Scholars” work has been posted all over the internet and has even made the corporate press because of the controversy it is spawning? Is it not arrogance on his part to dismiss these academics as "lacking credibility"? Where is Chomsky's evidence for this dismissal of his colleagues' work?

Instead he cites an imaginary and illusory body of "thousands of highly qualified engineers" with the "appropriate credentials" that can apparently prove how the official collapse model is scientifically sound. Who are these engineers? Why won’t they, along with the NIST engineers, debate the peer-reviewed science put forth by the Scholars? This group of brave scientists and intellectuals not only possess "appropriate credentials" and backgrounds, but, together, have systematically dismantled the FEMA, NIST and 9/11 Commission cover-up reports. Is it not revealing that these government "scientists" collectively refuse to publicly debate Scholars for 9/11 Truth!!!
[ http://www.teamliberty.net/id273.html ]

So where does Chomsky position himself within this debate? Why is he openly accusing the 9/11 truth movement of "wasting an enormous amount of time and energy", that "could be better focused on more important issues"? What issues are more important than the events that have led us into an era of "permanent war"? Why is he ignoring the world public's call for an international and independent public inquiry?

NECESSARY QUESTIONS ON UNNECESSARY ILLUSIONS

In light of all this, we are forced to ask some very unpleasant questions with regards to Chomsky's political and moral agenda, as well as his ideological allegiances. Does he know something about the Israeli connection to terrorism and 9/11 and is he afraid to make it public? (Do recall Sharon's explicit declaration on October 3rd, 2001, that "We, the Jewish people, control America and the Americans know it." [IAP News])

Is Chomsky an ideological supporter of Zionism, as claimed by Dr. Norman G. Finkelstein, author of The Holocaust Industry, in an interview given to Snowshoe Films? [ Watch "Straussians, My Behind" http://www.snowshoefilms.com/palestine.html ] If he is an ideological Zionist, then is he covering up the Israeli power-elite's involvement in international terrorism? Isn't it interesting, if not telling, that he avoids all discussion of the Federal Reserve and its Zionist control when he discusses economic power in America? Is this not lying-by-omission, something that he exposes with regard to the corporate media in his book, "Manufacturing Consent"?

Is his stance with regard to 9/11 and "terrorism" not an indirect means of "manufacturing consent" for the "War on Terror"? If so, Chomsky is complicit in the very power system and war machine that he has always condemned. Is it not significant that he has remained employed, despite his dissident activities, by one of the largest weapons developers in the United States, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he began working directly under the U.S. Army during the 1950s. [ http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs0209/0920_response.html ]

This leads us to this crucial question: is Chomsky's 9/11 position a result of his fear of power, do they have 'dirt' on him, or has he always been a high-level agent of state-propaganda working only within the acceptable confines of a specific, yet ambiguous ideological framework?



http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org

[scar]

I have pondered this over the years.
Heres some links Ive posted here before:

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/noamchomskygatekepper26sep05.shtml
http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/chart.htm
http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/articles/WhyTheyBelieveTheGovernmentLef tDenialOn911ByAugustWest.htm
http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/articles/WhyPeopleWontSeeHowYourGovernm entGetsAwayWithMurderByJohnKaminski.htm
http://www.freedomofthepress.net/
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2006/05/24/p83 72
http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/articles.htm
http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm
http://www.gnn.tv/forum/thread.php?id=6699
http://www.globalresearch.org/view_article.php?aid=342536303
http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/articles/ProfessorChomskyComesInFromThe ColdByDavidWalsh.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/criticism-of-noam-chomsky
http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/articles/NoamChomskyRoguesGalleryByStep henGowan.htm
http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/articles/conspiracyphobia.htm

[xmasdale]

Much as I would welcome support from Chomsky, he is only one individual. Though in many ways brilliant, he is also human, with human failings. In a recent interview I heard him confess he did not read nearly enough. (Certainly it appears he hasn't read the standard 9/11 literature). He may also in some way be yoked to the Zionist agenda, either by inducement or by blackmail or by ideology. But we can't get far by speculating about it.

I believe we should turn our attention towards other lefties (and also to rightists).

Galloway has publicly so many times said "Osama did it" that he will find it very hard to say "Oops! I was wrong." But at David Ray Griffin's London press conference on Tuesday, an assistant to George Galloway identified himself and made some open-minded remarks. Perhaps if we convinced Galloway that Osama was still working for the CIA at the time, that would give him a way out, by saying "You see; I was right all along."

When I asked Andrew Murray last month if he believed the official account of 9/11, he refused to answer. Since earlier responses from leading Stop the War coalition folk have been dismissive towards us, this silence suggests that a rethink is going on.

Certainly Yvonne Ridley has come round to our side in the past few weeks, though I'm not sure how influential with StW she is. She may now get treated as David Shayler was: very welcome on StW platforms until he started saying 9/11 was an inside job, whereupon they dropped him at freefall speed like a beam from the top of the WTC.

I think we just have to keep plugging away at it. Attitudes are changing fast and eventually there will be such a level of support for a new 9/11 investigation among the grassroots of the StW coalition, that their leadership will not be able to ignore it.

I shall continue to attend their meetings, be friendly with them and to assert publicly that the 9/11 Truth movement supports their aim of stopping the war.

Will anyone help me leaflet the confrence on Racism, Liberty and the War on Terror at Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, London all day tomorrow, Saturday 16th September?

There will be plenty of opportunities for persuasive conversations with folk there.

Noel

[Scott]

Quite right. Although Chomsky feels he hasn't seen any credible evidence of 9/11 being an inside job and also admits to not having read enough he also feels that intelligence service may foment conspiracy theories to push people out of the political spectrum. It seems he has a philosophy similar to Tony Benn's. If he speaks out, he'll lose his credibility, especially as this is still an issue which the mainstream media is still quite incredulous about.

[Scott]

With regard to Galloway, I have actually heard him on the Alex Jones radio show talking about a showdown with Iran and likely catalysts for this. Jones asked him, 'What if there were a staged attack by the military industrial complex that was then blamed on Iran' Galloway, slightly hesitantly, especially as it was right at the closing point of the show replied 'This is a real possibilty and a possibility that we need a public who are vigilant to' Maybe a crowd pleasing comment or trying to avoid the wrath of Jones, but he said it nonetheless. I don't know how useful someone like Galloway is - he's a terrible parliamentarian. He was in Dublin hosting 'an audience with George Galloway' when he was supposed to be voting against the governments 90 day detention plans and spent weeks in the big brother house performing unsavoury acts with Rula Lenska when he should have been present in Parliament representing his new constituency of mainly muslims. I often feel that I thinking what I'm told to think about him, but he's not a man I admire or trust.

[Sinclair]

Anyone know Clare Short's position/view on 911?

[Skeptic]

[Ally]

[Ally]

[Skeptic]

[Mark Gobell]

Surely by now we should all know that the myth of OBL and Al Q was designed to be a creation of the self fulfilling type.

Proof if proof was needed can be found among the Muslim wanabees who cling to the notion that a CIA database has transformed into a global threat to world peace.

Why would someone like Galloway cling to this notion ? To perpetuate the myth which serves as the fulcrum of attention for his poor deluded followers.

If the Muslims in the UK want to be represented properly they should elect Muslim representatives. Anything else is a sham. Period. They are being coralled into a known safe position. End of story.

Why are we constantly fed the idea that the Muslim body politic are all fervent supporters of OBL, Al Q and global jihad ?

It serves as encouragement for them to rally behind the myth that they are confronting the west, empowers them and aids in recruitment of the useful idiots our intelligence agencies so deperately need and further consolidates opposition to the myth from non Muslims, thereby propogating the chasm even further.

Everyone's a winner.

I applaud any effort to engage Muslims and STW, but their respective "leaderships" are obviously part of the problem not part of the solution.

[Bushwacker]

[outsider]

Conspirator writes that it's time we challenged Stop the War to a debate. I did this on Tuesday 12/9/06 at meeting in East Ham Town Hall, with Lindsey German, Tony Benn and others, saying from the mike that we would meet Stop the War anywhere, in public, private or on air to discuss this issue. Now, SOS!! Yesterday on early morning Radio 4 (5am+) I heard Hugo Chavez had repeated his allegations of US involvement in 911, but can find no subsequent info on it. Anyone able to help? The implications are tremendous, with the icon and darling of the left coming out so openly as a 'conspiraloon'. When this gets out, we should have to 'stand by to repel boarders' as the left rush to join us in hordes! outsider

[scar]

Welcome to the forum outsider.

[suspecta]

Here are some official news reports about Chavez' statement, starting with Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,214100,00.html

http://www.eitb24.com/portal/eitb24/noticia/en/international-news/to-e nsure-economic-power-chavez-suggests-us-involvement-in-9-11-a?itemId=B 24_9449&cl=%2Feitb24%2Finternacional&idioma=en

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a4.mbCEWbsbQ&refer =home

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13401534/

http://www.nbc5.com/politics/9837846/detail.html

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/World/2006/09/13/1833673-sun.html

http://www.wcsh6.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=41447

http://english.eluniversal.com/2006/09/12/en_pol_art_12A777323.shtml

Oops, sorry, just realised these reports are all about the first statement, not the second.

I totally agree that Stop the War needs to get up to speed on all this. Perhaps we should all contact our local groups and challenge them to show one of the many videos at a special 9-11-based meeting?

Suspecta

[Jane]

Conspirator:

[mason-free party]

why would a left winger of supposed principles like Galloway work for a zionist whore like Murdoch?...my belief is that Galloway is a freemason..like alot of the other leaders of left wing parties in history

[ian neal]

[Mark Gobell]

Speaking of Callum, I thought he came across very well on David Shayler's recent radio show.

I grabbed one of Callum's handouts at the recent workshop about contacting MP's, excellent stuff.

[xmasdale]