Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Chomsky: I've been in favor of an independent investigation for a long time. (10 posts)

  1. DBLS
    Inactive

    Chomsky on 911 investigation and conspiracy theories(in Z sustainers forum) http://gaimelist.blogspot.com/2007/11/chomsky-on-9... Reply from Noam Chomsky,

    I've been (publicly) in favor of an independent investigation for a long time. There are many holes in the investigation of any historical event that will never be filled, but an independent investigation might help clear the air. As for the theories now put forth, they have two crucial properties, in my opinion:

    (1) they draw enormous amounts of time and energy away from serious activism on urgent matters (and may well be welcome to those in power for that reason, as the JFK assassination investigations have been, so internal government documents indicate). It's also a rather striking fact that the Truth Movement differs so radically from activist movements in not taking any of the usual steps that are standard under far more difficult circumstances, ranging from demonstrations, tax resistance or more direct resistance and other forms of CD, law suits, referenda, political action -- in fact, just about anything.

    (2) what has been presented is not very credible. Evidence is of two types: (A) physical, (B) circumstantial. On (A), no one, to my knowledge, has been willing to undertake even the first minimal step considered to be a routine obligation by those who think they've made a physical discovery, whether it's about cold fusion, intelligent design, global warming or HIV-AIDS skepticism, or anything else: submit a paper to a science-engineering journal (and I don't mean the Journal of Intelligent Design). Hence those who do not want to devote a huge amount of time and energy to gaining the requisite technical competence and then inquiry into this specific case can draw no conclusions, just as they could not in other cases such as those mentioned. On (B), what's been presented seems to me very weak. Thus it's claimed that it's impossible that so many things could have gone wrong -- but we know perfectly well that that's the case constantly, very recently in fact. Take the flight of bombers carrying nuclear weapons over the US a few weeks ago, violating every imaginable security measure -- and extraordinarily dangerous: one engine failure might have made 9/11 look like a tea party. Or take the astonishing failure of US and foreign intelligence, homeland security, and everyone else to prevent someone with a very dangerous disease -- who they had identified and were tracking -- from entering the country on an ordinary commercial flight, with potentially extermely serious consequences (or even to apprehend him when he was here). And on, and on. And if one wants to concoct theories, why not argue that if it was a controlled demolition, the finger points directly to Osama bin Laden. How else can we explain the fact that Saudis were implicated (his prime enemy, and very valued allies of the Bush administration, who had to quickly fly Saudi businessmen out of the country in violation of airspace controls, apparently), not Iraqis -- thus undermini ng the goal of attacking Iraq? Not that I believe this, of course, but it's at least as credible as the theses put forth. And on, and on.

    Those who feel that it is a high priority for them to explore this topic have every right to do so, though the sanctiminous and self-righteous denunciations of those who do not follow along are another feature of the Truth Movement that differentiates it sharply from activist movements. Personally, I feel that there are much higher priorities. But that's for each person to judge.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  2. Arabesque
    Member

    Gate-keeping is telling us what we can and can't talk about, and what is and is not worth our time to discuss (WITHOUT examination).

    His language appears to be deliberately manipulative to suggest absurd things: investigating 9/11 is a distraction?

    Posted 17 years ago #
  3. chrisc
    Member

    Writing just days after 9/11 Chomsky said:

    "the attacks probably trace back to the Osama Bin Laden network... Bin Laden became a militant Islamic leader in the war to drive the Russians out of Afghanistan. He was one of the many religious fundamentalist extremists recruited, armed, and financed by the CIA and their allies in Pakistani intelligence to cause maximal harm to the Russians". http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20010919.htm

    A year later he wrote:

    "To begin with, it was assumed, plausibly, that the guilty parties were Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network. No one knows more about them than the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency]*, which, together with its counterparts among US allies, recruited radical Islamists from many countries and organised them into a military and terrorist force... Nevertheless, despite what must be the most intensive international intelligence investigation in history, evidence about the perpetrators of 9/11 has been hard to find... Nevertheless, despite the thin evidence, the initial conclusion about 9/11 is presumably correct." http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200209--02.htm

    Later that year he wrote about the network he assumes were behind the attack:

    "Their thinking was well understood, certainly by the US intelligence agencies that had helped to recruit, train, and arm them from 1980 and continued to work with them even as they were attacking the US. The Dutch government inquiry into the Srebrenica massacre revealed that while they were attempting to blow up the World Trade Center, radical Islamists from the CIA-formed networks were being flown by the US from Afghanistan to Bosnia, along with Iranian-backed Hizbollah fighters and a huge flow of arms" http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20020702.htm

    His source for this was an article in the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4...

    Two years later Chomsky gave no ground when he addressed the question of the "conspiracy theories about 9/11" by reproducing an extract from an email he wrote about the issue:

    "There's a weak thesis that is possible though extremely unlikely in my opinion, and a strong thesis that is close to inconceivable. The weak thesis is that they knew about it and didn't try to stop it. The strong thesis is that they were actually involved. The evidence for either thesis is, in my opinion, based on a failure to understand properly what evidence is. Even in controlled scientific experiments one finds all sorts of unexplained phenomena, strange coincidences, loose ends, apparent contradictions, etc. Read the letters in technical science journals and you'll find plenty of samples. In real world situations, chaos is overwhelming, and these will mount to the sky. That aside, they'd have had to be quite mad to try anything like that. It would have had to involve a large number of people, something would be very likely to leak, pretty quickly, they'd all be lined up before firing squads and the Republican Party would be dead forever. http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20050131.htm

    Posted 17 years ago #
  4. Menocchio
    Blocked

    Chomsky's lost a lot of credibility with me by his equivocation on the topic of 9/11. I never had the sense that he was talking straight on the subject, so I won't say he has really flip-flopped. It's more like he has been straddling the fence waiting to see which way the wind blows. He's clearly been a follower, and not a leader when it comes to 9/11 truth. A solid endorsement form Chomsky for 9/11 truth would be most welcome, but it is also quite overdue.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  5. christs4sale
    Administrator

    Ask Chomsky or any of the left structuralists if there was a conspiracy to kill MLK and you get a complete 180.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  6. Menocchio
    Blocked

    I believe MLK was assassinated by the same group who assassinated JFK. I assume you mean to say that these people will agree that MLK was not killed by a lone nut gunman.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  7. mark
    Member

    http://www.oilempire.us/chomsky.html

    Chomsky on JFK and 9/11

    Posted 17 years ago #
  8. truthmover
    Administrator

    Academic bias. More of the same.

    As I've stated elsewhere, academic social science is largely an oxymoron in practice. The process of becoming a tenured professor involves adopting the norms of an institution, and making money and securing prestige for that institution. That works for engineering or design. Not for social science. Effective social science, like any "hard" science requires that any variable that might contradict your hypothesis should be sought out and integrated. In a prestigious academic setting the parameters set out by the institution and its commercial operation preclude the inclusion of all social data. And thus the oxymoron.

    Chomsky is not free to speak his mind. He is always representing an academic position. Saying that we should have a new investigation might get some people on the "left" to look into why he said that, but dismissing the public investigation wholesale is simply irresponsible. We have some probable cause on the table that he is very consciously ignoring.

    I do think he has a point that this movement can be a distraction. But he is ignoring those for whom it is a great deal more than that.

    Bleh! Chomsky doesn't get it.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  9. If part of Chomsky's argument is there are higher priorities, then 9/11 truth is a priority, and in a list of priorities, eventually the lesser priorities are dealt with, fully and specifically.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  10. christs4sale
    Administrator

    Menocchio said:

    I assume you mean to say that these people will agree that MLK was not killed by a lone nut gunman.

    Basically Chomsky says that MLK's death is a PLAUSIBLE conspiracy and that he is not aware that much work has been done on it. In the book Understanding Power, which is a transcription of his talks with QandA, he denigrates the Kennedy assassination and then turns around completely when someone asks him about King because from his left perspective, he can see a reason to kill him. Chomsky is completely incapable of seeing that there are differences within the ruling class and sees Kennedy only as a ruling class bastard who was no different than any other Cold Warrior. He sees entities like the CIA as being only an arm of the president and that the president and the US intelligence apparatuses are always working for a common cause. If he cannot see those divisions to make sense of the Kennedy's killing, forget even trying to understand the society on the level of what the Reagan shooting means.

    Posted 17 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.