Ally Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005 Posts: 909 Location: banned
|
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:17 pm Post subject: Re: Noam Chomsky on 911 conspiracy part 2 |
|
|
Olly stone made the same hideous remarks lately -
O Stone about 9/11 conspiracy
By ewing2001
picked up at:
http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/724/724905p1.html
IGN Interview: Oliver Stone
We talk with the director of World Trade Center.
by Steve Head shead@ign.com
August 11, 2006
IGNFF: Considering your past films and the things you've said, what do you think of the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11?
STONE: I'd read some of those conspiracy theories. And frankly, I don't want to venture an opinion because I never got deeper into it. I read a couple of books. It's fascinating stuff. But you have to really go further. On JFK I really did a lot of research. I did a year-and-a-half of research. But here, I don't know. It seems to me in a broad way, if you look at the forest through the trees, it seems to me that what happened since is far worse than what happened that day. So a conspiracy theory, whatever it may be, is not as relevant as where we are now. I think we have more deaths from terror, more fear, more debt. We have constitutional breakdowns. We've got everything going on. Wars. So I think that's what matters, and we have to worry about that, really, instead of what say is so — and even if it is, so f****** what? We've got a bigger problem now.
IGNFF: You'd mentioned an interest in the idea that Richard Clarke proposed: That there was a high-level conspiracy.
STONE: That is a conspiracy, it seems to me, that everyone seems to be missing, and it's pretty overt. Richard Clarke got it, and so did several other books. I mean, there's a bunch of people who run the White House and who ignore all the normal traditions of the state department and CIA inputted information. And they simply went their own way with their own information inside the defense department and went to war. That, you could say, is a very limited conspiracy of people at the top...
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001
So if it don't matter who blew up the WTC why go dredging up the past and lying about it.
Review of Stone's WTC flick by Carol Brouillet -
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/08/344261.shtml |
|
scar Moderate Poster
Joined: 25 Feb 2006 Posts: 724 Location: Brighton
|
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 1:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=200607 20&articleId=2769
JPG: Your research goes against the thesis of some thinkers like Noam Chomsky that 9/11 is principally a blowback operation. How would you look at these views?
MC: Those views are totally incorrect. The blowback thesis assumes that the relationship between al-Qaeda and the U.S. government (including its intelligence apparatus) ceased in the wake of the Cold War. Because that’s what they say and acknowledge.
They say "yes we created al-Qaeda during the Soviet-Afghan war. We trained the mujahideen, we helped them in fighting the Soviet Union. And in the wake of the Cold War, al-Qaeda has gone against us." And that’s what’s called the blowback. Blowback is when an intelligence asset goes against its sponsors.
That viewpoint s incorrect because in the course of the 1990s there’s ample evidence of links between al-Qaeda and the U.S. administration, during the Clinton administration as well as the Bush administration, leading up in fact to 2001. There’s evidence of active collaboration between al-Qaeda paramilitary groups in the Balkans and senior U.S. military advisers.
I think that the blowback thesis, whether it emanates from supporters of the Bush adminstration or from the Left is mistaken and misleading. Why? Because it really provides legitimacy to the war on terrorism. It essentially says "yes, the war on terrorism is a legitimate objective of U.S. foreign policy." I would say that people who support the blowback are either mistaken and unaware of the facts, or alternatively they are tacitly involved in media disinformation. |
|