Noam Chomsky: He has changed...

It was nice that some of the replies were insightful and on-topic.

reply to post by zaintdead


You can knock yourself out trying to conjure up improbable reasons why Noam Chomsky doesn't support " 9/11 was an inside job " while avoiding the obvious : he thinks it's bunk.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by zaintdead

 

You can knock yourself out trying to conjure up improbable reasons why Noam Chomsky doesn't support " 9/11 was an inside job " while avoiding the obvious : he thinks it's bunk.

or...he and/or his family has been threatened with bodily harm, funny how that obvious reason never seems to hold credance...after all, if the partys involved in this were of the wealthy elite, intimidation and threats of bodily harm could easily be hidden as well as paid for. a short anonymous phone call, with extremely serious language and credible detail, probably is all it would take.

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by zaintdead

 

You can knock yourself out trying to conjure up improbable reasons why Noam Chomsky doesn't support " 9/11 was an inside job " while avoiding the obvious : he thinks it's bunk.

or...he and/or his family has been threatened with bodily harm, funny how that obvious reason never seems to hold credance...after all, if the partys involved in this were of the wealthy elite, intimidation and threats of bodily harm could easily be hidden as well as paid for. a short anonymous phone call, with extremely serious language and credible detail, probably is all it would take.

Why doesn't someone give Alex Jones, Richard Gage, Dylan Avery et al. a call then ?

Does Chomsky have a track record for speaking out on specific sensitive topics only years after the fact? I know he has written much on Vietnam and the farce that was, but was he speaking out during the war, or only after?

Have had for the past 2 hours a back and fourth conversation with Chomsky, i'll post them soon, think they'll be the final words on what he has to say. I've been as polite as possible. Once I post the 3 or 4 emails you can make your own conclusions about him.

There are many who say that if a famous intellectual spoke out against the 9/11 official story then they would have an 'accident'.

That’s utter garbage. Famous intellectuals have quite openly spoken against the official story, and nothing happens at all. As noted, it’s “safe and innocuous,” though some participants like to pretend to be very courageous and to insult others who actually do take serious risks.

I'll post the full conversation tomorrow, but he basically ignores history about how intellectuals are the first to be targeted and he also asked me to apologize. For someone so smart I'm surprised he doesn't realize that most oppressive dictatorships kill off the 'intellectuals' first...

To be honest after I post all four e-mails it is clear he is 100% defending the official story.

My final question to him was what risks have you taken? Am awaiting that answer, since he keeps saying it is safe and innocuous to be a 9/11 truther but somehow he is taking 'real risks'. So I've asked what real risks he has taken. What could they be? I haven't seen any bombshells from Chomsky relating to current events in the media or even in his own publications of recent times.

I don't really understand the thread topic. How has he Changed? I don't see why it is impossible to believe that the government and media are lying, manipulating and screwing everyone, and simultaneously think that 911 conspiracies are manipulative lies, just from people with a different agenda.

I just think its too bad that Chomsky does not make this comparison himself. The media from the 911 truth movement is just just as manipulative as MSM at its worst.

reply to post by zaintdead

I appreciate your effort to get an answer from Chomsky. I believe Chomsky's focus on institutional structures, class and developments has often led him to downplay the role of individuals and conspiracies as unimportant side issues.

QUESTION: Well, do you feel also ... I mean, I know that you have advanced these arguments and a number of other people have also advanced these arguments -- they are there to be found by anyone who wants to seek them out.... But at the same time, I think there's a great effort in the mainstream media to write these arguments off as conspiracy theory.

CHOMSKY: That's one of the devices by which power defends itself -- by calling any critical analysis of institutions a conspiracy theory. If you call it by that name, then somehow you don't have to pay attention to it. Edward Herman and I, in our recent book, Manufacturing Consent, go into this ploy. What we discuss in that book is simply the institutional factors that essentially set parameters for reporting and interpretation in the ideological institutions. Now, to call that a conspiracy theory is a little bit like saying that, when General Motors tries to increase its market share, it's engaged in a conspiracy. It's not. I mean, part of the structure of corporate capitalism is that the players in the game try to increase profits and market shares; in fact, if they didn't, they would no longer be players in the game. Any economist knows this. And it's not conspiracy theory to point that out; it's just taken for granted. If someone were to say, "Oh, no, that's a conspiracy," people would laugh. Well, exactly the same is true when you discuss the more complex array of institutional factors that determine such things as what happens in the media. It's precisely the opposite of conspiracy theory. In fact, as you mentioned before, I generally tend to downplay the role of individuals -- they're replaceable pieces. So, it's exactly the opposite of conspiracy theory. It's normal institutional analysis -- the kind of analysis you do automatically when you're trying to understand how the world works. And to call it conspiracy theory is simply part of the effort to prevent an understanding of how the world works.

www.chomsky.info...

Before 9/11 Chomsky has downplayed the importance of other "conspiracy theories" like the death of JFK. I think Michael Parenti gives a very good rebuttal to Chomsky and link-minded intellectuals (watch the following video from 31:00 till end).

Michael Parenti The Ganster Nature of the State

Originally posted by Dustytoad
reply to post by zaintdead

 

Here: to get this on topic...

"I mean even if it [US GOVERNMENT COMPLICITY IN THE 9/11 ATTACKS] were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? I mean it doesn't have any significance." -Noam Chomsky

Source were I found quote


Sounds like a loser.. I havent validated that quote yet..

The quote comes from Noam Chomsky speaking in Budapest at the Kossuth Klub. The relevant part starts at 7:10.

reply to post by zaintdead


"but to say that claiming 9/11 was an inside job is 'safe and innocuous' is just...
it doesn't make sense to me."

that's exactly the reason why you shouldn't trust chomsky. he's bull#ting you.
and that's why i don't trust fake liberals. just like neocons. ask about 9/11 and
you'll soon find out that they (fake liberals and neocons) are the same.

reply to post by Alfie1



or he (chomsky) is not a trustworthy person (anymore)?

Why do so many put this guy on an intellectual pedestal?

He's just another has-been.

Think of famous bands, famous people, etc...

All of our celebrities eventually succumb to the self destructive, foolish ways that follow fame.

Chomsky is no different. He was a badass in his time, but that time has passed.

Now he's just another fool.

Maybe he was killed and replaced with a clone? Just kidding....
Seriously though, maybe 9/11 honestly can't be considered an "inside job" because it was a GLOBAL effort.
If I've learned anything, it's that the majority of people are not what they seem to be.

Just my opinion, but Mr. Chomsky is telling us that you cannot create change or produce results by screaming bloody murder from the nearest mountain.

Change occurs from the inside by injecting the issue into the conversations and actions by people that have the power to do so.

In the circles he runs with, I'd be willing to bet that it is common knowledge that 9/11 is not what it seems. But it would do no good to talk openly about it if he has a better chance to create awareness and change from within much powerful circles.

Originally posted by crawdad1914
Does Chomsky have a track record for speaking out on specific sensitive topics only years after the fact? I know he has written much on Vietnam and the farce that was, but was he speaking out during the war, or only after?

Chomsky was against the war at the time, he was a prominent critic of the vietnam war from relatively early days.

en.wikipedia.org...'s_political_views#Opposition_to_the_Vietnam_War

Looking at the original response Chomsky gave you, I know I understand him better than you do.

Since well, we think very much alike.

I think he was just trying to make you see that its neither this nor that. Its neither what the media claims, nor what the conspiracy theorists claim that its an inside job. Because the 'evidence' people claim they have in either position, is simply not enough to support either position fully. Its a god awful mystery....and its being kept as such by the government's own agencies who won't give out the full story, and compounded by the conspiracy theorists who just claim its an inside job because of the way the gov keeps information to themselves.

If I was in his shoes, I wouldn't bother writing about it and taking a stance either....he simply doesn't have a stance get it? He might have a personal opinion on whats going on, but intellectuals don't just write personal opinions based on what they think happened....they are credible because of what they KNOW happened...thus the lack of proper evidence in this case is why he should and is avoiding making elaborate stances in the subject.

Its also kind of silly for you to look up on this man like he's the whistleblower of American hypocrisy. Thats not his job. And its not your job to expect 'truths' to be told to you....make up your own judgements.

why, because they'll find his head floating in a river.

if you uncover real evidence that proves that cheney, the cia etc planned and orchestrated 9/11 and you where about to reveal it to the world, chances are your life is in extreme danger.

if they are willing to kill thousands of people, deceive a nation they were entrusted to protect so they can acquire more of the worlds two most profitable resources; opium and oil, i doubt they will even hesitate for one millisecond to try to neutralize that threat.

you can't go around poking animals like that armed only with your laptop.

especially since chomsky doesn't believe in God, even though he is an expert on the war between good and evil.

he needs to go one layer deeper, to fully understand the scope of what's happening.

he told you you took the easy way out, if he doesn't acknowledge God, then he's the one burying his head in the sand.

or he is just another cleverly disguised agent of disinformation, on the same team cheney is on, just posing as a seeker of truth.

reply to post by randomname

or he is just another cleverly disguised agent of disinformation, on the same team cheney is on, just posing as a seeker of truth.

Or

Or

Option "B" - he's right about all this conspiracy stuff being nonsense and you'e wrong. But what are the chances of that, huh?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by randomname

 

or he is just another cleverly disguised agent of disinformation, on the same team cheney is on, just posing as a seeker of truth.

Or

Or

Option "B" - he's right about all this conspiracy stuff being nonsense and you'e wrong. But what are the chances of that, huh?

I know, right..

Not like I agree with Chomsky on everything, but if nothing else, he's been a consistent critic of US foreign policy for almost 50 years, not to mention somewhat of a communist sympathizer during the height of the cold war. But for some, if he don't believe that 9/11 wuz and inside jerb, then he must be disinfo.

What is the problem with these people? Couldn't they just say that he was mistaken, or perhaps hadn't really taken the conspiracy theories seriously? No, it has to be that "they must have got to him", or "he's disinfo".

fuuuuu.....

reply to post by zaintdead


Wow! Nice job. I have felt the same way about Chomsky. He has not lost my respect.

But we sure could use it now. The old fire. He does not have it any more. So sad.