Chomsky: US-led Afghan war, criminal

[item8]

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/149520.html

Chomsky: US-led Afghan war, criminal
Wed Nov 3, 2010 5:45PM

Renowned Jewish-American scholar Noam Chomsky says US invasion of Afghanistan was illegal since to date there is no evidence that al-Qaeda has carried out the 9/11 attacks.


"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 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."

"All of this was totally illegal. It was more, criminal," Chomsky said.

The 2001 US-led invasion of Afghanistan was launched with the official objective of curbing militancy and bringing peace and stability to the country.

Nine years on, however, the American and Afghan officials admit that the country remains unstable and civilians continue to pay the heaviest price.

[xmasdale]

Has Chomsky gone as far as this before? I'm not sure.

He's talking about the non-existence of evidence that Al Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attacks. That is surely equivalent to saying that the US government has lied about 9/11.

Looks like a breakthrough with him I think. It implies he may have seriously considered the points raised by David Ray Griffin in his open letter to Chomsky and other left gatekeepers.

Time for a cheer, I think.

[hatsoff]

Has Chomsky gone as far as this before? I'm not sure.

He's talking about the non-existence of evidence that Al Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attacks. That is surely equivalent to saying that the US government has lied about 9/11.

Looks like a breakthrough with him I think. It implies he may have seriously considered the points raised by David Ray Griffin in his open letter to Chomsky and other left gatekeepers.

Time for a cheer, I think.

I wouldn't break out the champagne yet. Don't forget he's worked for the pentagon and he is a professional linguist

[blackbear]

"Gee, it took the brilliant genius 9 years to finally admit the glaringly obvious? It's too late to play catch-up now, Professor Chomsky. Blankfort was right.!"

Alice the Kurious

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/view ... =8&t=30092

[TonyGosling]

As vets here will know Chomsky was verbally abused for several years by a mixture of annoyed 9/11 Truthers and agents provocateurs in the years after 9/11 turning him against the movement.
As he was such a key person to influence ... and some of you above may have played into the perps hands with regard to Noam.
Very good to see he's moving towards our position again.

Chomsy is his own man you can be sure of that.

[Thermate911]

Nice try, Tony, but no, he didn't have the guts to expose the obvious. Same applies to any intellectual who forsakes truth for expediency (and a comfy 'chair'). There's no way back. You listening, Monbiot?

[xmasdale]

Another campaigner, not registered on this site has sent me this:

Sounds like a breakthrough to me.

As far as I kniow he didnt actually 'work for the Pentagon' but was
employed on a funded research programme at MIT (as Ive done at Surrey
IUniversity) and some of the research money came from the Pentagon
(just as my research money came from a British govt with blood onits
hands, via the ESRC application process). Its as simplistic to say he
worked for the Pentagon as to say i worked for the Thatcher, Major and
Blair governments.Looking at who provides funds can be useful but its
just as important to look at the research done and how far it contests
the funder's or part-funder's or indirect funder's policies and
ideology.

I 'm not an expert on Chomsky but I suspect he'd come out of such an
examination OK. If not then judge him on the basis of his research and
writing, not on where some of his funding came from.

[Wakeymedia]

I agree with Thermate911 - (G)Noam is simply in an inexcusable dereliction of duty as a supposed big hitter of truth and decency. The 9/11 issue exposes him totally.

It's no good cutting him any slack on that one, the wars and the Fascist Oligarchy are steaming ahead at full-speed because the truth about 9/11 remains suppressed. It really is as simple as that. Sorry.

Since the truth of 9/11 came to light to anyone with a functioning brain (who has seen the evidence presented) (G)Noam's pronouncements have been exposed for what they are - platitudes and cowardly feeble bleatings from the safe-zone and the sidelines.

And there he stands in that very same safe-zone with other traitors and cowards who are more interested in the sounds of their own staggeringly hypocritical voices and their personal gain and comfort than they are in undermining Fascists and telling the truth (which is, after all, supposedly their job). Step forward Goodman, Fisk, Monbiot and many others equally as snivelling.

[TonyGosling]

Chomsky's positio is disappointing but Thermate and Wakey who want to browbeat Chomsky into agreeing with us present a self-defeating argument.

[Thermate911]

Chomsky's positio is disappointing but Thermate and Wakey who want to browbeat Chomsky into agreeing with us present a self-defeating argument.

In the immortal word of one Manuel:-

¿Qué?

I am not in the least bit interested in 'browbeating' Chumpsky - just jailing him for dereliction of duty and tenure.

[xmasdale]

Noam is simply in an inexcusable dereliction of duty as a supposed big hitter of truth and decency. The 9/11 issue exposes him totally.

It's no good cutting him any slack on that one, the wars and the Fascist Oligarchy are steaming ahead at full-speed because the truth about 9/11 remains suppressed. It really is as simple as that. Sorry.

Since the truth of 9/11 came to light to anyone with a functioning brain (who has seen the evidence presented) (G)Noam's pronouncements have been exposed for what they are - platitudes and cowardly feeble bleatings from the safe-zone and the sidelines.

And there he stands in that very same safe-zone with other traitors and cowards who are more interested in the sounds of their own staggeringly hypocritical voices and their personal gain and comfort than they are in undermining Fascists and telling the truth (which is, after all, supposedly their job). Step forward Goodman, Fisk, Monbiot and many others equally as snivelling.

Oh what a brilliant strategy! We try for years to encourage prominent people to realise the truth about 9/11. When they eventually get it and come out with statements supportive of our position we berate them with insults for not having supported us earlier. That will surely encourage others to come out to gain the reward of insults from the 9/11 Truth Movement!

By that logic we are all guilty and deserve insults for the time before we too realised the truth.

[item8]

He has NOT seen the light. He always knew the truth. He is a rat leaving the sinking ship and trying to save his own skin before the inevitable retribution begins. He is guilty of treason and should not be allowed to escape the consequences of his years of anti 9/11 truth propaganda. He and his kind deserve the same fate as Lord Haw Haw.

[xmasdale]

He has NOT seen the light. He always knew the truth. He is a rat leaving the sinking ship and trying to save his own skin before the inevitable retribution begins. He is guilty of treason and should not be allowed to escape the consequences of his years of anti 9/11 truth propaganda. He and his kind deserve the same fate as Lord Haw Haw.

You may be right in your assessment of him. Not having the power of mind reading, I am unable to judge.

If Chomsky is someone who has in effect sold out and is only now changing his tune to save his skin (pardon the mixed metaphors) that is excellent news because it means he has smelt the tide is turning. That probably means it is. The millions on the political left who admire him will now have to change their assessment of the 9/11 issue.

But there is nothing to be gained by personal insults. Our case rests on evidence, not personal attacks.

Calls for revenge will not cause journalists to change their minds. It will merely confirm their prejudices that we who lambaste them are so deeply cynical that we are not worth taking seriously.

We beat the donkey with a stick when he doesn't do what we want and when he does we beat him again in punishment for the previous times when he didn't. We offer no carrots to anyone. There are far more important things we should do to advance the growth of consciousness of the truth than to berate those who reluctantly reveal it.

Remember it is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.

Too many metaphors? Sorry!

[item8]

Not having the power of mind reading, I am unable to judge.

You don't need to be able to read minds, just judge on his comments and behaviour.

Calls for revenge will not cause journalists to change their minds.

How about calls for justice then? "Journalists" don't need to change their minds, just tell the truth. The vast majority doubtless already know since the official conspiracy theory is so blatantly nonsense. These so-called "Journalists" are to journalism what a rapist is to love-making.

[TonyGosling]

Bullying journalists will never persuade them to your view.
9/11 was a powerful psyop and you don't acknowledge that.

[Wakeymedia]

Yes, 9/11 was a powerful psy-op but this is Chomsky we're talking about. THE Chomsky.

If there is anyone on this very Earth who should have rumbled 9/11 for what it was it is the great (G)Noam. It's not like one of his specialities isn't scrutinising and exposing what Babylon does. That's his main occupation!

And it's not like the info of many documentaries and books etc. etc. on 9/11 isn't out there. (G)Noam is more than intelligent enough to see, for example, a documentary like Improbable Collapse and "get it" straight away.

Sorry, (G)Noam and the Fisks and Goodmans of this world will go down in history as having been integral parts in one of the most shameful and inexcusable derelictions of duty in the history of Journalism. What else is it?

Bob Mcilvaine, an ordinary citizen having suffered the most appalling loss at the hands of Fascists, has done more than any of these supposed big-hitters of righteous international Journalism have. So what are these people, (G)Noam, Fisk, Goodman et al for? What are these people doing when one of the biggest Fascist crimes and warcrimes in Human history has taken place right under their noses (and has been pointed out to them time and time again) and they are not shouting from the rooftops for a new investigation into it.

No. This collection are exposed by the 9/11 issue.