Revelations are coming out from the Alex Jones website, InfoWars, that Howard Zinn has stated very clearly that he doesn't care whether or not the WTC buildings were blown up or not. I'd like to make myself clear regarding these "conspiracy theories" about 9/11, as I am a guest contributor here to this blogsite, and I don't know how many of Shane's friends agree with me or not.
I think that 9/11 wasn't what the government told us it was, but I do tend to take the more extreme position -- this is to say, extreme according to mainstream American views -- that the Israeli Jewish Zionists are complicit in the crimes of that day. But what happens so many times over in these kinds of discussions is that the sections of debate discredited by the opposing party tend to end up being the most passionate arguments of those who argue for it, whether it be the JFK Assassination or Pearl Harbor. And it is the demolition arguments that become the focal point and source of origin for the 9/11 debates. Regardless of who is right in the debate on demolition, 9/11 was still a criminal conspiracy involving elected officials of high office in both America and Israel.
I try not to involve myself with the arguments supporting the demolition theory because I'm no physics and demolition expert and what happens so often with me is I get confused in the maelstrom of debate on it. Already both sides have mountains of evidence for their arguments and limos full of experts ready to defend their positions. You'll spend half of your time arguing pointless technicalities and by the time an agreed consensus is reached favoring the demolition theory, an interval of time will have passed rendering any levied depredation pointless by the egregious violations of the Constitution and ethics of morality.
Having said all of that, and boy, that was a mouthful, I'd like to at least cite a portion of the article written that has to do with Noam Chomsky because I know that our friend Shane hear is a big fan.
During a 2006 Internet forum event, Chomsky claimed that the 9/11 truth movement peddled “arcane and dubious theories” and had distracted activists from pursuing “crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC,” presumably belittling the deaths of around 2,000 Americans, along with hundreds of thousands of Afghanis and Iraqis, as well as thousands of U.S. troops in the wars that followed that could not have been launched without the pretext of 9/11.
When a critic asked Chomsky why he was so dismissive of the supposition that 9/11 was a false flag event, pointing out numerous other examples throughout history including the bombing of the Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin incident and Pearl Harbor, Chomsky merely reiterated his insolence, stating, “The concept of “false flag operation” is not a very serious one, in my opinion. None of the examples you describe, or any other in history, has even a remote resemblance to the alleged 9/11 conspiracy. I’d suggest that you look at each of them carefully.”
Chomsky actually dismissed U.S. government complicity in 9/11 a mere four months after the event, and over a year before it was again invoked as a reason to invade Iraq, when he told an audience at a FAIR event at New Yokr's Town Hall, 22 Januaryar 2002, "That's an anternet theory and it's hopelessly implausible. Hopelessly implausible. So hopelessly implausible I don't see any point in talking about it," in response to a question about U.S. government foreknowledge.
Note that Professor Chomsky also vehemently maintains that Lee Harvey Oswald was the long gunman in the JFK assassination, even despite polls showing that around 80 per cent of the American public believe otherwise.
Chomsky was presented with convincing evidence for a wider plot by JFK assassination experts as far back as 1969 and according to Selwyn Bromberger, an MIT philosophy professor who had sit in on the discussion, Chomsky indicated that he believed there was a conspiracy, but has failed to voice his conclusion for nearly 40 years.
It’s painfully clear that the likes of Zinn and Chomsky are intellectual cowards who, despite being abundantly aware of the fact that both 9/11 and the JFK assassination represent far wider conspiracies than the official version of events dictates, they are afraid of using their prominent soapboxes to bring either subject to wider attention for fear of whatever reprisals might ensue. As Vincent Salandria enunciates, this makes them worse than disinformation agents.
“I agree that Professor Chomsky is not a CIA agent,” states Salandria, “But with respect to his pronouncements on the JFK assassination he is worse than a CIA agent. Without being an agent, with his enormous prestige as a thinker, as an independent radical, as a courageous man, he does the work of the agency.”
Indeed, at the time of the release of Oliver Stone’s JFK movie, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky and another liberal luminary, Alexander Cockburn, went on a seemingly orchestrated media campaign in an attempt to convince the public that the JFK assassination was not a wider conspiracy and also that it didn’t matter even if it was.
“When cornered themselves, Chomsky and Cockburn resort to rhetorical devices like exaggeration, sarcasm, and ridicule. In other words, they resort to propaganda and evasion,” notes one blogger.
The same rhetoric was utilized when questions about 9/11 reached a crescendo. Cockburn, Zinn and Chomsky not only dismiss clear evidence that the official story is demonstrably false, but in addition attempt to generate apathy around the whole issue, classic gatekeeper behavior in preventing the left from becoming active in pursuing the truth about 9/11.
The article's link is here: http://www.prisonplanet.com/howard-zinn-i-dont-care-if-911-was-an-inside-job.html
If Zinn and Chomsky don't come clean and apologize for such blasphemous treachery I will have no other choice than to declare them disinformation agents purposefully misleading people away from the truth. I really shouldn't be giving them this much benefit of the doubt. Are Zinn and Chomsky part of the criminal cabal? For that matter, who does Alex Jones work for? We know he's on the Genesis Communications Network whose satellites are loaned to them by one of the three major networks, either ABC, CBS, or NBC. That's controlled oppposition right there, out in the open.
Since I have read a fair amount of Chomsky, I guess I'll step up with a defense of his postition. From what I remember reading, his dismissal of conspiracy theories in general, and those of 9/11 and JFK specifically, is not meant to "belittle" the victims of those incidents. And I don't believe he fears any reprisals for suggesting that those theories are true. What I can gather from the reading is that, it is exactly as he states it to be, a distraction from other crimes. It's fairly obvious that our government doesn't care whether or not anyone believes the official story. And I think it's quite probable that it's in the governments best interest for people to be divided on what they believe to be true regarding the events in question. If people are to busy arguing over the details of the events as opposed organising a serious resistance to the tragic laws and wars that came after the events(specifically 9/11) then the government can move things through almost entirely unopposed. It's quite like a resource war, in which the resource is intellectual energy, and if a lot of really bright people are essentially wasting that resource on whatever the conspiracy du jour is, then they aren't actively opposing the oppressive state. It benefits the criminals to be accused of far fetched criminality instead of being accused of illegally taking us to war or stripping away our basic civil liberties. I don't think Chomsky is a propagandist for the state, I think he just believes that intellectual resources are better spent on things not in the conspiracy theory realm of thought.
ReplyDelete