Chomsky dodges 9/11 -

[MikeWB]

Chomsky dodges 9/11 -

[LatinAmericanview]

Now that was amazing! It is beyond my comprehension that Professor Chomsky could list the most recent crimes against humanity and forget the most holy of holies- the Holocaust. The whole series of emails seemed contrived. Lastly I have a problem with the violation Chomsky's privacy.

[joeblow]

LAV, sometimes you make me wonder. Chomsky is an obvious gatekeeper, fed with Jew Fiat currency by the Tax-free robber baron Foundations, who exposed his cultural upbringing by making false accusations. I'm sorry that it upsets you that Chomsky's privacy was violated, but if I had to choose between that or protecting my fellow Gentile slaves from Jew machinations, then I would choose the latter.

[Canard]

barret is a jew

[joeblow]

barret is a jew

That's strange? Because I've watch nearly all the 9/11 films he has been in and listened to all his radio programs and he has repeated many times to being Irish. Can you please supply an appropiate link?

[LatinAmericanview]

LAV, sometimes you make me wonder. Chomsky is an obvious gatekeeper, fed with Jew Fiat currency by the Tax-free robber baron Foundations, who exposed his cultural upbringing by making false accusations. I'm sorry that it upsets you that Chomsky's privacy was violated, but if I had to choose between that or protecting my fellow Gentile slaves from Jew machinations, then I would choose the latter.

Chomsky is a red diaper shill. Moreover, he is an agent who has lost respect and most importantly credibility. None of what is discussed in the emails is ground breaking. In fact, it is Old Noam falling on his sword on the way out of the political arena and Dr. Barnett replacing him as a truth seeker.  If I thought that anything Chomsky had to say was important, then maybe it would be worth violating the man! However, all that is accomplished is making Chomsky look  more feeble and out of touch. Violating and old shills privacy and by extension my own. Lastly, the claims that Chomsky makes about TM is vindicated by Dr. Barnett's action. Who benefits from this exposure?

Seriously, Blowman and anytime you want to play chess lets go at it. oh and please remember some people can see a little further down the board than others.

[LatinAmericanview]

I'm sorry that it upsets you that Chomsky's privacy was violated, but if I had to choose between that or protecting my fellow Gentile slaves from Jew machinations, then I would choose the latter.

Do you really think that is the choice?  LOLOL

If had to choose between Chomsky and rocky road Ice cream then forgive me but I scream for Ice CREAM!

Please if you are giving me choices make them one that have some basis in reality.

[joeblow]

I'm sorry that it upsets you that Chomsky's privacy was violated, but if I had to choose between that or protecting my fellow Gentile slaves from Jew machinations, then I would choose the latter.

Do you really think that is the choice?  LOLOL

If had to choose between Chomsky and rocky road Ice cream then forgive me but I scream for Ice CREAM!

Please if you are giving me choices make them one that have some basis in reality.

Let's examining this logically:

Statement - Lastly I have a problem with the violation of (sic.) Chomsky's privacy.
Cause - The violation of Chomsky's privacy.
Effect - LAV has a problem.
Choice 1 - Not to violate Chomsky's privacy.
Choice 1's Effect - LAV will not have a problem, Gentiles fooled again, and the Jew Chomsky is happy.
Choice 2 - Violate Chomsky's privacy.
Choice 2's Effect - LAV will have a problem, Gentiles defeat disinfo, and the Jew Chomsky is sad.

I think I would prefer Choice 2, but if you belive that my deduction is false, please change it.

[LatinAmericanview]

I'm sorry that it upsets you that Chomsky's privacy was violated, but if I had to choose between that or protecting my fellow Gentile slaves from Jew machinations, then I would choose the latter.

Do you really think that is the choice?  LOLOL

If had to choose between Chomsky and rocky road Ice cream then forgive me but I scream for Ice CREAM!

Please if you are giving me choices make them one that have some basis in reality.

Let's examining this logically:

Statement - Lastly I have a problem with the violation of (sic.) Chomsky's privacy.
Cause - The violation of Chomsky's privacy.
Effect - LAV has a problem.
Choice 1 - Not to violate Chomsky's privacy.
Choice 1's Effect - LAV will not have a problem, Gentiles fooled again, and the Jew Chomsky is happy.
Choice 2 - Violate Chomsky's privacy.
Choice 2's Effect - LAV will have a problem, Gentiles defeat disinfo, and the Jew Chomsky is sad.

I think I would prefer Choice 1, but if you belive that my deduction is false, please change it.

What about the third option?
I call this little gem Good Jew/ Bad Jew!
Are you still with Blowman?
Pay attention!
Barnet and Chomsky are involved in a little dialectic game.  See after 60 years of political activism Chomsky was out foxed by a courageous Truth Seeker. Apparently Chomsky's Vietnam experience did not prepare Chomsky for such betrayal. This seems so contrived.  Therefore, I do not see why his privacy and mine by extention should be violated. If I thought that Chomsky was somehow important then maybe.

[joeblow]

Edited it to choice 2.

[Anonymous]

Intellectual banter, don't ya just love it.  These guys really do know how to throw the insults in an oh-so-professional manner.  

Did Dr. Barrett even realize that he was speaking to a Jew?  Chomsky is Jewish and I have never been surprised that he will not discuss the events of 9/11.  His people are winning, after all.  

Someone said Barrett was Jewish.  Well then, he must be a Muslim Jew, which I doubt, because he stated numerous times that he is a Muslim who's family has been damaged by the demonization of Muslims since 9/11.  

The issue that pisses me off about intellectuals like Chomsky is that they hide behind their intellectual specialty, but fail to use their god-given common sense.  Anyone with half a brain can easily determine that the towers were "brought" down.  They did not fall down.  Has it become a rule in America that no one, formally educated, or not, can have an opinion if they were not educated in a specific field?  Chomsky just chooses to remain mute on the matter because he's a coward and a Jew.  Besides, apparently he has done his bit for activism during the Vietnam War, or so he says.

[LatinAmericanview]

Has it become a rule in America that no one, formally educated, or not, can have an opinion if they were not educated in a specific field?  Chomsky just chooses to remain mute on the matter because he's a coward and a Jew.  Besides, apparently he has done his bit for activism during the Vietnam War, or so he says.

Also keep in mind that Chomsky made his name in developmental psychology although he was formally trained as electrical engineer.

[THE AQUARIAN 1]

Has there been a legal suit filed against the Bush administration for the crimes of September 11th?  

Does it really make sense to jump to the conclusion that Chomsky is somehow a Zionist Shill that is in on the conspiracy?  I mean, is that what people think?  Do you think he is in on a conspiracy?  Cause that kind of talk, calling him a shill, makes people think he's a puppet and there is no real evidence to back that claim, not any that I've seen.  If someone has some evidene to put behind that remark please bring it forward.

Chomsky is a genius.  Anyone who has read his work knows this.  The fact that he is a "Jew" does not discount the work he has done, nor does it make him culpable for September 11th, nor does it make him a sneaky conspirator.  His position on September 11th is baffling but not unthinkable.  Many very intelligent people are holding onto the official story for dear life.  I find it hard to believe that Chomsky is knowingly hiding the truth behind the attacks.  I find it much more likely that he has chosen to investigate the "why" of the attacks, instead of the "how."  Which is logically backwards.  You always investigate the how first, then the why.  He's probably one of those people that see George W. Bush as a Texas cowboy incapable of spelling his own name let alone fooling the entire world with an incomprehensible lie.  And that of course, is why George W. Bush is president of the United States of America.

All in all, the Barrett/Chomsky exchange is good on all levels.  It gets people talking.  I suggest distributing this to everyone you know, over e-mail, myspace, facebook, youtube, however the hell you can get it out there.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

[sullivan]

Does it really make sense to jump to the conclusion that Chomsky is somehow a Zionist Shill that is in on the conspiracy?

Chomsky has himself said that he was a Zionist in his youth.

From an interview with Ludwig Watzal...

" I was a Zionist activist in my youth. For me, Zionism meant opposition to a Jewish state. The Zionist movement did not come out officially in favor of a Jewish state until 1942. Before this it was merely the intent of the Zionist leadership. The Zionist movement for a long time stood against the establishment of a Jewish state because such a state would be discriminatory and racist."

Zionism has never meant opposition to a Jewish state and the Zionist movement was in favour of a Jewish state long before 1942. Theodore Herzl, addressing the first Zionist congress in Basel, Switzerland in 1897, made several references to the need for a Jewish homeland. His work at that congress helped to bring about the formation of the Zionist Platform (also known as the Basel Platform) which stated:

"Zionism seeks for the Jewish people a publicly recognized, legally secure homeland in Palestine."

Zionists have also been engaging in racist slurs long before 1942. To baldly state that Zionism was officially opposed to a Jewish state up to 1942 and that Zionists were opposed to discrimination and racism is disinfo of the most disingenuous kind.

I mean, is that what people think?  Do you think he is in on a conspiracy?

In on it? Perhaps not. But part of a controlled opposition, most certainly.

Cause that kind of talk, calling him a shill, makes people think he's a puppet and there is no real evidence to back that claim, not any that I've seen.  If someone has some evidene to put behind that remark please bring it forward.

His dislike for the 9/11 truth movement and outright refusal to consider the issues involved is well documented.

Chomsky is a genius. Anyone who has read his work knows this.

I've read his political works as well as his works on linguistics.  He is very clever, but a genius he is not.

The fact that he is a "Jew" does not discount the work he has done, nor does it make him culpable for September 11th, nor does it make him a sneaky conspirator.

Nobody claimed that his jewishness alone makes him culpable, or a conspirator. However, his angry and obnoxious reaction to any mention of 9/11 truth does ring a number of very loud alarm bells.

His position on September 11th is baffling but not unthinkable.  Many very intelligent people are holding onto the official story for dear life.  I find it hard to believe that Chomsky is knowingly hiding the truth behind the attacks.

There has to be a reason why his opposition to 9/11 Truth is as vitriolic as it is. There is certainly more to it than mere academic disagreement. For a start, he makes no effort whatsoever to debunk the mainstream 9/11 Truth narrative. As for 'many intelligent people' holding on to the official story for dear life, I would say that this is testament to their lack of intelligence or to an over-supply of moral cowardice.  Any truly rational and lucid person could not buy the official story.

I find it much more likely that he has chosen to investigate the "why" of the attacks, instead of the "how."  Which is logically backwards.  You always investigate the how first, then the why.  He's probably one of those people that see George W. Bush as a Texas cowboy incapable of spelling his own name let alone fooling the entire world with an incomprehensible lie.  And that of course, is why George W. Bush is president of the United States of America.

A subtext running through any Chomsky thesis in this area is that the United States is calling the shots and that Israel is merely a U.S. base in the Middle East. To Chomsky, 9/11 is a reaction against US hegemony and he is doggedly unwilling to consider any other reasonable explanation. Why he is so stubborn on the matter is clear - any exploration of 9/11 Truth will inevitably open up a can of worms that will demonstrate that not only is the United States a client state of Israel, but that the neo-con administration is top-heavy with Zionists who, in conjunction with Israeli 'intelligence', brought about 9/11 in order to allow the parasite state of Israel to further tighten its fatal grip on its host.

[LatinAmericanview]

Has there been a legal suit filed against the Bush administration for the crimes of September 11th?

Does it really make sense to jump to the conclusion that Chomsky is somehow a Zionist Shill that is in on the conspiracy?

A: Ellen Mariani filed and RICO Lawsuit agnaist Bush and Co.- The suit has been in leagal limbo for years.

A: According to the Chomsky Reader which I read many moons ago- Chomsky parent were very active in the Communist Movement of the 30s and 40s. Chomsky's dad was a noted rabbinical scholar. Professor McDonald would call him a red diaper baby.

[joeblow]

Has there been a legal suit filed against the Bush administration for the crimes of September 11th?

Does it really make sense to jump to the conclusion that Chomsky is somehow a Zionist Shill that is in on the conspiracy?

A: Ellen Mariani filed and RICO Lawsuit agnaist Bush and Co.- The suit has been in leagal limbo for years.

A: According to the Chomsky Reader which I read many moons ago- Chomsky parent were very active in the Communist Movement of the 30s and 40s. Chomsky's dad was a noted rabbinical scholar. Professor McDonald would call him a red diaper baby.

Well, isn't that literly the textbook definition of a "red diaper baby"? This kinda proves a personal opinion that I've had about atheists that they always replace one religion/prophet/religious book with another: liberalism/Chomsky/Chomsky Reader.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_diaper_baby

Red diaper baby describes a child of parents who were members of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) or were close to the party or sympathetic to its aims.

[LatinAmericanview]

Blowman please elaborate. I can understand that you don't like my position on religion. Sure -but what does this have to do with Chomsky? Please explain your position.

[LatinAmericanview]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnNK5YoxnXc

Dr. Kevin MacDonald talks about the Red Diaper Babies

[joeblow]

Blowman please elaborate. I can understand that you don't like my position on religion. Sure -but what does this have to do with Chomsky? Please explain your position.

As I've said, it is my humble opinion that you take Chomsky's every statement as pure gospel. I understand and fully appreciate this viewpoint. Though I used to be a patriotard (patriot + retard), my parents were anti-Iranian government Kurds (Kurds are infamous in the Middle East for being Marxists) and I grew up in a hardcore-leftist household. I've read and are acquainted will all the fundemental religous texts and prophets of progressives. Even this May 1st, I went undercover at some revolutionary anti-Stalinist neo-Trotskist 5th Internationalist demostrations and discussed the failure of degenerate worker-states.

That being said, I hope you at least give the same amount of healthy skepticism and objectism to Chomsky's writings as you would any work produced by a religious Christian.

[Ognir]

Shit I thought I'd already posted this above, oh well

This is a fun thread have to say

Let's be clear about it,  any email sent from person a to person b is recorded by the ISPs/NSA/Government and that's the way it's here in Switzerland so if you send an email, it's never private.

Chomsky is a big shite and a 911 Denier. Yet he'll support that shit state with his bs and of course the holocoa$t.

Barrett wastes time IMHO on 911 and should look into the financing, but then you know what he'd find

Shill

[LatinAmericanview]

Blowman please elaborate. I can understand that you don't like my position on religion. Sure -but what does this have to do with Chomsky? Please explain your position.

As I've said, it is my humble opinion that you take Chomsky's every statement as pure gospel. I understand and fully appreciate this viewpoint. Though I used to be a patriotard (patriot + retard), my parents were anti-Iranian government Kurds (Kurds are infamous in the Middle East for being Marxists) and I grew up in a hardcore-leftist household. I've read and are acquainted will all the fundemental religous texts and prophets of progressives. Even this May 1st, I went undercover at some revolutionary anti-Stalinist neo-Trotskist 5th Internationalist demostrations and discussed the failure of degenerate worker-states.

That being said, I hope you at least give the same amount of healthy skepticism and objectism to Chomsky's writings as you would any work produced by a religious Christian.

Blowman! Blowman! You are giving me a headache!

This what I said.

Chomsky is a red diaper shill. Moreover, he is an agent who has lost respect and most importantly credibility. None of what is discussed in the emails is ground breaking. In fact, it is Old Noam falling on his sword on the way out of the political arena and Dr. Barnett replacing him as a truth seeker. If I thought that anything Chomsky had to say was important, then maybe it would be worth violating the man! However, all that is accomplished is making Chomsky look more feeble and out of touch. Violating and old shills privacy and by extension my own. Lastly, the claims that Chomsky makes about TM is vindicated by Dr. Barnett's action. Who benefits from this exposure?

Seriously, Blowman and anytime you want to play chess lets go at it. oh and please remember some people can see a little further down the board than others.

I read some Chomsky's book's when I was in my early twenties. Chomsky has very little credibility with me.

Here is a link to a post :[url]http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/2718[/url]

Tell me who is responsible for 911. If we can not agree on this fact then why should I listen to you?
Quote:
The New War Against Terror

October 18, 2001 - Transcribed from audio
recorded at The Technology & Culture Forum at MIT

He starts the talk with 2 assumptions:

* The first one is just what I assume to be recognition of fact. That is that the events of September 11 were a horrendous atrocity probably the most devastating instant human toll of any crime in history, outside of war.
* The second assumption has to do with the goals. I