This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Noam Chomsky: No Evidence that Al-Qaeda Carried Out the 9/11 Attacks
Leading liberal intellectual Noam Chomsky just told Press TV:
"The explicit and declared motive of the [Afghanistan] war was to compel the Taliban to turn over to the United States, the people who they accused of having been involved in World Trade Center and Pentagon terrorist acts. The Taliban…they requested evidence…and the Bush administration refused to provide any," the 81-year-old senior academic made the remarks on Press TV's program a Simple Question. "We later discovered one of the reasons why they did not bring evidence: they did not have any." The political analyst also said that nonexistence of such evidence was confirmed by FBI eight months later. "The "All of this was totally illegal. It was more, criminal," Chomsky said.
head of FBI, after the most intense international investigation in
history, informed the press that the FBI believed that the plot may
have been hatched in Afghanistan, but was probably implemented in the
United Arab Emirates and Germany."
Chomsky
added that three weeks into the war, "a British officer announced that
the US and Britain would continue bombing, until the people of
Afghanistan overthrew the Taliban... That was later turned into the
official justification for the war."
As Wired wrote on September 27, 2001:
President
Bush has said he has evidence that Osama bin Laden was behind the
attacks, so it would seem obvious that the FBI would include him and
other suspects on its 10 most wanted fugitives Web page.
Think again.
Bin Laden is listed, but only for the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies
in Tanzania and Kenya. There is no mention of the 1993 World Trade
Center bombing or the attacks on the USS Cole in October 2000, both of
which he is widely believed to have orchestrated. And forget about Sept.
11.
The reason? Fugitives on the list must be formally
charged with a crime, and bin Laden is still only a suspect in the
recent attacks in New York City and Washington.
"There's going to
be a considerable amount of time before anyone associated with the
attacks is actually charged," said Rex Tomb, who is head of the FBI's
chief fugitive publicity unit and helps decide which fugitives appear
on the list. "To be charged with a crime, this means we have found
evidence to confirm our suspicions, and a prosecutor has said we will
pursue this case in court."
Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA officer
who was deputy director of the U.S. State Department Office of
Counterterrorism from 1989 to 1993, said in a Sept. 12 interview
conducted by Frontline that there is no concrete proof that bin
Laden is responsible for the USS Cole and the 1993 WTC attacks, but bin
Laden celebrates those attacks and associates himself with people who
are responsible for it.
President Bush promises to reveal
evidence linking bin Laden to the suicide hijackers who attacked the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Bin Laden has applauded the
attacks but denies direct involvement.
The Bush administration never provided such evidence.
As I wrote last December:
President Obama said Tuesday night as justification for the surge in troops in Afghanistan:
We
did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked
four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people.
Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban”, who refused to turn over Osama bin Laden.
Is that true?
On
October 14, 2001, the Taliban offered to hand over Osama bin Laden to a
neutral country if the US halted bombing if the Taliban were given
evidence of Bin Laden's involvement in 9/11.Specifically, as the Guardian writes:
Returning
to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said
the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn [bin Laden]
over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over." He
added, "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's
guilty" ...
Afghanistan's deputy prime minister, Haji Abdul Kabir,
told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden
was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US.
"If the
Taliban is given evidence that Osama bin Laden is involved" and the
bombing campaign stopped, "we would be ready to hand him over to a third
country", Mr Kabir added.However, as the Guardian subsequently points out:
A
senior Taliban minister has offered a last-minute deal to hand over
Osama bin Laden during a secret visit to Islamabad, senior sources in
Pakistan told the Guardian last night.
For the first time, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial in a country other than the US without asking to see evidence first in return for a halt to the bombing, a source close to Pakistan's military leadership said.
And yet ... the U.S. turned down the offer and instead prosecuted war.
And in 2006, FBI agent Rex Tomb told reporter Ed Haas that the FBI still did not have enough evidence:
The
reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page
is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.
In fact, many leading liberals have expressed doubts about 9/11,
including Daniel Ellsberg, Ray McGovern, William Blum, Dennis Kucinich,
Mike Gravel, Lewis Lapham, Dan Hamburg, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan,
Amy Goodman, Thom Hartmann, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Marc Crispin Miller,
Howard Zinn, Robert McChesney, Gore Vidal, Chris Floyd, Robert Fisk,
Medea Benjamin, Doris "Granny D" Haddock, Paul Hawken, David Cobb,
Randy Hayes, Ernest Callenbach, Dennis Bernstein, Paul H. Ray, Michael
Franti, Janeane Garafalo and Ed Asner.
As have many prominent old-fashioned conservatives. And the 9/11 Commissioners themselves. See this.
»
- advertisements -
hehe....this is too fucking funny....seriously I feel like I am sitting in a room listening to a bunch of folks, who have made a lot of sense about our financial situation, go absolutely fucking insane.
You are too late with your bullying nonsense. It may have worked for you for the past 9 years, but the cat is coming out of the bag now ... faster than you can try stuffing it back in. Good luck with that ... most here can see through you and will junk you to oblivion.
You 9-11 Deniers make me sick. You are nothing but a collaborator in the destruction of the US and half of the middle east.
Moi a denier? Surely you must have pressed the wrong button and are actually replying to the dimfuck above me claiming that the Jooos did 9/11?
Better late than never.
The CIA trained the 'Mujahadin Freedom Fighters" (when Bush I was Director) to fight the Soviet Army, to make Afganistan the Soviet Vietnam. As usual, they co-mingled their military and drug enterprises( ala Ollie North), running opium from Afganistan to fund the operations. CIA and Mujahadin contacts are presumably still in existance.
Now, a former Mujahadin and Bush associate Bin Ladin is the poster boy for an attack on American soil. An attack using assumed identies and box cutters and novice pilots fling jets into two buildings at terminal speed (600mph), and three buildings come down at freefall speed in their own footprints. An attack during Bush II's presidency, which he 'won' during the most contested election in US history, and where the election in the state where his Brother Jeb was the Governor was decisive. In addition, the Vice President was a former executive of Halliburton, and Oil services company, of which KBR, a defence contractor, is a subsidiary.
Look at the facts and draw your own conclusions.
Like 911 conspiracy theorists are fucking assclowns?
http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm
Do you honestly believe that building 7 turned to dust because of fire?
No I believe it fell because of a big fucking gash in the side of it and from the raging fires that weakened the entire structure. What do you believe?
I bet you believe that a bunch of Jews ran around the insides of all the buidings installing explosives while no one, including a war hero of two countries who was a legend in security who died getting folks out, watched. Then they got 4 planes and made two of them vanish since fuckwit conspiracy theorists believe that one of the planes hitting the towers was not a passenger plane, and the plane hitting the pentagon was not a plane but a missile, and they took all the people on those two planes and relocated them, never once explaining why they had to go through the trouble of NOT using actual planes since the actual planes contained enough energy to destroy those buildings. Then these clever jews got everyone involved in this consiracy to shut their fucking mouths.
You motherfuckers probably also believe in SANTAFUCKING CLAUS.
" including a war hero of two countries who was a legend in security who died getting folks out, watched."
Please explain.
He just belched out an 80+ word run-on sentence -- please don't ask him to talk more.
hehe...better bad grammar than insane beliefs.
Did you know that on 9/11 two vans with Israeli citizens were stopped and the occupants arrested? One van had bombs in it. The other had traces of bombs. The citizens were given polygraphs, which they failed, and sent back to Israel. This was reported by Fox News and Dan Rather. After lobbying by the ADL the story was pulled and removed from the websites.
The above is factual. Israeli's with bombs, near bridges, were arrested on 9/11. Another van with a painting on the side of planes flying into the towers was reported by many people to police while the attack was ongoing. That is also a fact.
hehehe....muhahahaha....please stop it my side is hurting from reading your shit.
Well that settles it Jews with Bombs...I KNEW IT! ITS ALWAYS JEWS WITH BOMBS...motherfuckers staged the Holocaust.
Oh fuck -- too late.
Rick Rescorla...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Rescorla
Cyril Richard "Rick" Rescorla (May 27, 1939 – September 11, 2001) was a retired United States Army officer of British birth who served with distinction in Rhodesia as a member of the British South African Police (BSAP) and as a soldier in the Vietnam War as a Second Lieutenant in the United States Army.[1] As the World Trade Center security chief for the financial services firm Morgan Stanley and Dean Witter, Rescorla anticipated both attacks on the towers and implemented evacuation procedures that are credited with saving many lives. He died in the attacks of September 11, 2001, while leading the evacuation efforts.
Fucking assclowns who believe that this was a jewish conspiracy are just scared pussies who don't want to face the horrifying fact that instead of a bunch of civilized thieving bastards killing us, it was a 1400 year old religion followed by billions that drove the killers. And that there at least another million of those same crazy towel headed bitches who want to do the same or worse. It is a lot easier for those fucking crybaby truthers to believe the "JEWS" did it because Jews are less scary than fanatic islamic warriors wanting to behead you.
It is not possible for it to have fallen in the manner that it did without explosives. It is not possible. That's just a fact of life.
What your mom told you about that glue you sniffed as a child has unfortunately been proven by your insights.
Buildings do not collapse symmetrically at free fall speed unless the resistance is removed simultaneously. If it were the case that fire and or the propane explosion brought the building down, it would not have been brought down symmetrically; portions would have falling in at different speeds.
The only possible explanation is controlled demolition. Additionally, two different scientists who examined the dust found traces and evidence of nano-thermite. That seals the deal.
hehehe....I knew I shouldn't be drinking near my monitor reading this thread...you are hilarious. Tell you what look behind you right the fuck now...yup that sound you heard was a Jew in a Black Helicopter planning to kidnap you because you are ON TO THEM...I TELL YOU HOLY SHIT...who knew that some schmuck sitting at his keyboard would figure out those evil jew bastards creeping around setting bombs in buildings and then flying fucking planes into them...to cover their tracks.
Wait you pissants believe that the Jews, evil bastards that they are, blew up WTC7 to cover up the evidence...? From who? After all anyone big enough to pull the sort of stuff you folks hallucinate is too big to fuck with. Who would expose them? 60 minutes? CBS? NBC? FOX NEWS? CNN? Tyler? Are all those fuckers insane? Who would fuck with a crowd of people so fucking super smart, super sneaky, super ruthless that they can pull off 9/11 and blame on the second most incompetent group of people on the planet?
It is always the jews...eh?
Why are we talking about Jews again?
I assume it's coz peirre is a casualty of Zionism and is playing out his deep rooted victim complex. That or he's just in the lashing out stage of accepting a difficult truth and has chosen the popular "ANTI-SEMITE!" card.
"If you want to know who your rulers are, ask who cannot be criticized."
Because those motherfucking deniers see a jew behind every fucking bush....they believe that the Jooos did 9/11.
Space Moose is not amused...
http://www.hackcanada.com/canadian/zines/spacemoose/demagogue.gif
Regards
Had Chomsky never been, chances are you wouldn't be reading ZH, because we might be years behind in the field of formal languages. Also, read his contemporaneous accounts of what was going on behind the scenes in the Vietnam war. It's as if the guy had a crystal ball.
In the past, yeah, he might have been a leftist, but there is no longer left or right. Right now, there are only people feeding us bullshit, and people trying to tell us the truth. If we don't shed the old dichotomy, there will soon be only masters and slaves.
All the infighting over issues that we used to have the luxury of debating is going to hasten our inclusion in the latter group.
Join or die.
Once a communist always a communist...if you fucking stupid enough to believe in leftist bullshit in the first place then you are never going to improve.
Chomsky is an enemy...he would gladly watch those who don't believe in his bullshit burn.
Chomsky's a bit of a lefty, true (he describes himself as an Anarch-Syndicalist). But then most people who haven't studied any economics are a bit lefty.
His heart's in the right place geo-politically, however.
Not sure what you mean. Economics or econometrics? Is my Auto Regressive Moving Average superior to Joe's Quadratic Programming analysis or Fred's Neural Network analysis or Jane's Game Theoretic analysis? Or are they different formulations of the same idea?
Do I move to the left by choosing a certain model, or by choosing certain initial conditions to a certain model?
Global optimization is hard. Solving large systems of non-linear equations is hard. Finding an optimal solution to large systems of non-linear equations is beyond today's technology.
The attempt to solve these problems along a political axis sets their solution back by centuries.
i'm more inclined to believe Noam is a "lefty" in the best sense of the word. He is "liberal" as it relates to human rights. He is an advocate of social freedom. he condemns totalitarianism. I am not aware of Noam Chomsky advocating "big government solutions". in this way, he may be considered fiscally conservative in wishing to limit centralized powers.
Chomsky's anarcho-syndicalism is a great pipe dream of the dreamy left: societies of that form existed for all of ten minutes in 1930's Spain and in the Ukraine during the Russian Civil War. He doesn't believe in any state powerful enough to actually defend the people he mourns as victims of capitalism: he can defend the Khmer Rouge mass-murderers because of how decentralized they were (depite them benefitting from Mao's patronage and the cooperation of Kissinger and Bzerzinski) but always portrays the U.S. government, the greatest defender of freedom and the working man the world has ever known, as evil. Chomsky's a bitch.
Ah, somebody who cuts through the left/right/libertarian/socialist crap and deals with reality, thank you.
To the people on this forum who believe the free market gives you freedom and government takes it away, you may want to think that through again with your ideological blinkers off. Without government intervention slavery would still be going strong.
If you think that the money powers care about anything but accruing more money and power then you are mistaken, or maybe you believe that without government these money powers wouldn't exist in the first place, again you are mistaken. The big guys always crush the little guys given the chance, this is what has happened to the west as a result of deregulating corporations and banks.
We need a transparent, honest government with huge power over business and hardly any power over individuals if we want things to improve. I don't have an ism for this form of government and I don't want one.
On the topic of 9/11, if you think it was the work of muslim extremists then look a bit closer. If you still believe the official story then please stay out of these 9/11 threads and let the adults have an intelligent discussion.
which is it, the first or the second?
We create government (Republic of Laws) to protect individual liberty and property rights where they may otherwise be harmed under 'jungle law'. However, when government officials (lapdog politicians) conspire with capital (corporate bailouts/corporate welfare) using the letter of law, we have 'oligarchial fascism'. Large centralized federal governments ALWAYS lead to oligarchial fascism because they both create the burgeoning federal coffers that can be raided and have a monopoly on centralized force. In other words, they become the very gorilla in the jungle (taking without merit or peaceful production) against which our Republic of Laws was meant to defend.
I don't quite understand your first question. I made my snarky comment about official story believers staying out of 9/11 discussions because I am so frustrated with these people derailing my reasoned debates with fellow "conspiracy theorists" by telling us to "put your tinfoil hats back on", "watch out the black helicopters are coming for you", "you just hate jews don't you you RACISTS!" and so on.
It would be extremely simple to design an honest transparant government, just put laws in place that brutally punish corrupt politicians. Once you have these laws you can be sure that your representatives are working for YOU not private financial interests, or else they end up as a decorative lamp post bauble.
I completely agree with your diagnosis of the problems but I disagree with your solution of minimising government while leaving Wall Street and the gang free to carry on business as usual, we should be increasing the power of government to crack down on corporate crooks while minimising their power to boss around the little people.
Governments don't need to be large to be effective, the amount of less than useless administators employed by the government is horrifying. What I'm saying is that government is the only force capable of taming greedy private interests, currently the government is owned by these same interests and we need to change that.
i like your idea on stiff criminal penalties for white collar crime. however, i disagree on all other counts. nobody makes us trade on the private NYSE, so we are free to protest it by trading privately or on another exchange. however, it is our debt-based monetary system which allows for illegal leverage via fractional reserve counterfeiting that gives the international banking cartel and their cronies significant power and influence over our lives. because we compete against these newly printed FRNs with FRNs that we have earned through providing valuable goods/services, we are subject to a system which favors the existing rich at the expense of the existing poor, with significant headwinds towards upward mobility.
if FRNs were not 'legal tender', then they could not be counterfeited. you would only need to deal with other honest business people at your own risk, and so would other individuals. in other words, nobody would have an unfair advantage.
a rule of law protecting your property from other monkeys is paramount. 'more government regulation' is not. this is sleight of hand misdirection that only results in making your life more difficult and never results in solutions. namely, end the private federal reserve gosbank, outlaw fractional reserve lending, and open up regional economies to competing asset-backed currencies including gold and silver.
as you mentioned, bigger centralized governments are not the solution. they simply succeed in creating large public coffers to be raided by corporate and labor cronies and their lapdog politicians. starve the beast and place our government workers in soup lines immediately so we can go back to being sovereign men who are responsible only for not imposing upon the liberty of our neighbors.
BTW, The last paragraph was a general statement and not aimed at who I was replying to.
FDR: this is the twenty first century, 1930 is so 8 decades ago, evolve.
being unpatriotic, especially as it relates to a great nation, can be quite profitable for an enterprising intellect. chomsky will always have an audience because he does keep it interesting. i don't give him much credence overall, but his voice of dissent brings a wider spectrum to journalism, however loosely it is defined.
basically, i'll listen to what Chomsky has to say up to the point where i am bored to tears.
Once a FASCIST always a FASCIST...if you fucking stupid enough to believe in RIGHTIST bullshit in the first place then you never going to improve.
PierreLegrand is enemy...he would gladly watch those who don't believe in his bullshit burn.
Do you think he will ever get the message and back up his insane ravings with some facts?
My money is on no.
Hey assclown try this on...
http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/fascism_and_war/chomsky.htm
The bulk of the young people who became radicalized during the 1930s joined the Communist Party, while a smaller number became anti-Stalinists. And within this minority most joined the Trotskyist movement or the left wing of the Socialist Party, which tended to overlap. There were, however, a smaller number that identified with anarchism or the left communism (sometimes called council communism) that constituted a reaction to the compromises with world capitalism forced on the USSR. Noam Chomsky became part of this current.
Chomsky created an eclectic blend of council communism, anarchism and a left-Zionism that was natural to a Jewish household that retained many traditional beliefs side-by-side with progressive politics. All three influences reinforced each other and produce what appears to be a life-long affinity for small-scale cooperatives against "state socialism."
And there is this as well...
From the standpoint of Marxism, Chomsky's preeminent place in American politics represents something of a challenge. In contrast to the legions of Marxist scholars who jet set from conference to conference delivering obscure papers on how to re-interpret the Grundrisse or understand Marx from the perspective of French poststructuralism, Chomsky has always preferred speaking to community groups or activists:
What are called "conferences"--gatherings of intellectuals I almost never attend--I do give endless talks and take part in many forums, but not the kind that would be called conferences. I almost always turn down invitations to these. Thus I almost never go to the Socialist Scholars Conference (though I have a lot of personal friends there), or to academic and professional conferences, etc. Virtually all of my talks are for popular and activist groups, though typically, they are combined with talks at universities, sometimes seminars, but more often for mass audiences interested in the general area.
If Chomsky can be infuriatingly superficial on the major questions of our epoch, including the nature of the USSR, he more than compensates through his passionate devotion to the underdog. His works have been geared to people new to radical politics, who are trying to make sense of the discrepancy between bourgeois democracy's lofty professed ideals and the actual record of blood, plunder and rape. The Marxist movement can learn much from Chomsky, most of all how to speak to the ordinary citizen. As late capitalism's contradictions continue to mount, there will be a tremendous imperative to speak with clarity and with authority. To do this successfully, we must pay careful attention to Chomsky's writings. Indeed, for all of Chomsky's frequent disparaging of Marxian socialism, his uniquely prophetic voice reminds us of none other than Karl Marx's own
Chomsky was a communist...and anyone stupid enough to think that communism is a good idea is not worth listening to for one moment. Furthermore anyone who defends idiocy like Chomsky's deserves to be ignored as well.
Thank you PierreLegrand that was actually quite interesting. I'm no fan of Chomsky's, I actually think he is an amoral lefty out to make a buck of being a "dissident", the problem I had with your previous posts was that they contained a lot of slander and no information to back up your opinion (unlike the post I'm replying to). I think this was what the other Pierre was getting at by turning your diatribe against you and making just as much sense as you did in the process.
The problem I have with Chomsky and the reason you wound me up so much is the issue of 9/11, I'm in my final year of my physics course at univerisity (not that this makes my opinion any more valid then aynbody else's) so I understand the principles of newtonion mechanics, and I can tell you with 100% certainty that fire's alone would not cause WTC7 collapse at freefall speed for any length of time (the NIST report admits that there was a 2.6 second period of freefall acceleration during the collapse). The only situation where this could be possible would be a controlled demolition where all the supporting structures are destroyed at the same instant in time.
This is in my opinion the strongest evidence for government involvement but there are countless other reasons to believe that the events of 9/11 were planned and carried out by the American, British and Isreali governments.
The evidence is so overwhelming that frankly only a person blind or ignorant to the facts could deny it.
... or a shill.
Thanks for making my point.
this is a happy surprise since Mr. Chomsky has been on record saying that the conspiracy theories of explosives were unrealistic. It appears that he has been presented with new information.
Yes, I remember him saying soon after that he could well believe the US government would do it, but he was disinclined to believe they had done it, as he couldn't see how they could have kept the operation a secret.
This was his original position. And he was certainly no fan of the State of Israel.
I don't think he is taking the controlled demolition or inside job position. He is saying the war is illegal because no evidence was presented.
Chomsky is a jew. Jews are the leading defenders of the official story. Please, all of you take notice when someone starting calling names. Notice who they are. Jews, I suspect, undesrtand that IF it was an inside job, it would involve hoards of Jews.
Chomsky's no reflexive supporter of the traditional 'Jewish' causes - he's very pro-Palestinian, for instance.
good point, BigJim. i never know what to make of Noam, but i appreciate his voice of dissent.
He may have finally saw this video from a New York City TV station of WTC 7 coming down: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc7.html?q=wtc7.html