Chomsky Joins "Jersey Girls" Petition for 9/11 Documents

[seemslikeadream]

Thanks reprehensor

http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id359.html

Noam Chomsky joins 9/11 “Jersey” widows in calling for release of 9/11 documents

February 14, 2007 -- Noam Chomsky has signed a petition written by the 9/11 “Jersey” widows calling for the release of classified documents relating to the 9/11 attacks. The Muckraker Report has contacted him by e-mail and verified that the individual listed on the petition is indeed Noam Chomsky. Chomsky’s name is #6432:

This appears to be a pretty significant change from Chomsky’s past views on 9/11, where it’s been his opinion that no further investigation into the attacks is necessary, and it’s our view at the Muckraker Report that Chomsky really deserves credit for taking this step. Chomsky has suffered more abuse at the hands of the 9/11 truth movement than probably any other figure on the left – he’s been called everything from a CIA mole, to a lapdog of the Neo-Cons, to an Israeli agent – and the sense I got corresponding with him was that he probably would have signed something like this a long time ago, if it hadn’t been for all the people lobbing insults at him. You know, the “left gatekeeper” accusations, etc.

I’ve talked to Dylan Avery over at Loose Change, and we agree that as a gesture of goodwill towards Chomsky for taking this step it’d be really awesome if people in the 9/11 truth movement could please cool it with the bashing of Chomsky and other figures on the American left. At this point, the Jersey widows need all the friends they can get.

That said, now that Chomsky has agreed to sign the widows’ petition, the Muckraker Report would like to see the following people sign too: Alexander Cockburn and crew at Counterpunch, the editorial staff at the Nation, Michael Moore, Barbara Ehrenreich, Amy Goodman, Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, Seymour Hersh, Nicholas Leman at the New Yorker, Christopher Hayes, anyone who writes for the Daily Kos, including Kos himself, and the absolutely divine Camille Paglia...

Continued...
http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id359.html

---------------------------------------------

I had really lost respect for Noam Chomsky for his general stance on 9/11 anomalies.

Somehow, somewhere down the line, somebody got through to him.

My respect for Chomsky is on the rebound.

You can join the petition too!

Public's Right To Know - Declassification and Release of Documents
http://www.petitiononline.com/july10/petition.html

[salvorhardin]

1. Don't forget boloboffin's thread on this topic

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x141129

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

4. I can too most certainly explain why!

Chomsky signed the petition and was promptly anointed a truther by the people at Loose Change.

I signed the petition, seeing as how I agree with everything it says, and so by the same logic, I am now a truther.

This isn't me talking, this is Loose Change. This is 9/11 Truth approved logic I'm using here!

I think that explains succinctly why I am no longer an OCTer. So stop saying otherwise, brother!

[Contrite]

8. Just like Noam

You're just asking questions, right?

[BeFree]

9. One small step for bollo

and that's about it.

It took you all this time to come to the conclusion that a real investigation is needed? And you had to wait for some icon to lead you? Why am I not surprised?

But you are not a truther are you? Define what a truther is, in your opinion. What I've read here recently a truther is to be scorned, that's what team OCT has been saying, and while you may deserve some scorn, it is not for being a truther, is it?

[jberryhill]

10. The problem is binary thinking....

For example:

Let's say I agree with the Warren Commission Report on the JFK assassination, and you disagree with the Warren Commission. We could have a lively discussion on Oswald's history, bullet trajectories, the CIA, the Mafia, Cuba, and the whole works. We could both probably learn things in the course of that discussion.

However, what we are going to disagree with is who shot JFK, how many shots were fired, and why they did it. I doubt we are going to disagree that JFK was shot.

We are not going to spend endless hours being harangued by those who call us murderers if we do not agree that JFK wasn't shot, but that he had an explosive device implanted in his head in order to make it explode.

There is zero question that the US worked with, encouraged, and cultivated Islamic extremists for a long time and for lots of reasons that seemed, to somebody, to be a good idea at the time. A "full investigation" of 9/11 would certainly uncover all sorts of things that would be uncomfortable for all sorts of people. All sorts of skeletons in all sorts of closets, and plenty to go around. I'd love to see those skeletons outed, and I believe that there's a whole lot of truth we haven't heard. But none of that has anything to do with remote-control airplanes, planted explosives, firing a missile at the Pentagon, molten pools of metal, etc.

Do you expect that every Christian is a creationist? If a professing Christian has reconciled his faith with evolution as God's mechanism for the creation of species, do you browbeat him because he "doesn't believe the Bible"?

Take the no-planers, for example. How much "investigation" do you think is needed into the question of whether or not airplanes were flown into the WTC towers? Leaving aside the entire question of planted explosives and whatnot in addition to the planes, do you really believe that to get off of "team OCT" I really need to doubt the reality of the airplanes?

[Bryan Sacks]

11. This is an excellent post n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

12. I have set out the logical reasoning for my being a truther.

The argument advanced by the Loose Change crowd is simple.

Anyone who questions any part of the 9/11 official story is a truther.

Noam Chomsky questioned a part of the 9/11 official story.

Therefore, Noam Chomsky is a truther.

This is a logical argument, because Q = T, NC = Q, therefore NC = T. The argument is sound.

The action justifying premise two being valid is the signing of the petition in the OP. I also have signed the petition, because I agree with it.

Therefore I am a truther. BB = Q, therefore BB = T.

However, many people are rejecting my identity as a truther. I can hardly blame them for doing so.

To do this, however, they are denying that premise two is true in my case. They are saying that I do not actually question a part of the official 9/11 story. Yet, I assure you that I do, in the case of the petition. Condi has her story about what happened in that meeting, and George Tenet has his. Any records about that meeting that exist should be released, so that we can know the truth about that meeting.

Therefore, I am questioning a part of the official story. To deny my being a truther, you cannot invalidate the second premise, because it is true. You cannot attack the argument, because it is logically sound. In order to deny my being a truther, you must invalidate the first premise.

However, invalidating that premise is not something I expect truthers would want to do. Invalidating that premise means that Noam Chomsky also is not a truther, and for exactly the same reason. So if you want to flash Noam Chomsky around as a truther, you have to accept me as a truther as well. To deny my truther status, you must also forswear the use of Noam Chomsky's signature on this petition as a propaganda tool.

Actually there is a way to invalidate the second premise. But it is not by denying my sincerity in signing the petition, because I did sincerely sign that petition as an expression of my desires. I want to see those records come out, for exactly the reasons stated. However, the way to invalidate the second premise also excludes Noam Chomsky from truther propaganda efforts.

These are the only logical courses of action available to you. Find a way to invalidate the first premise (and thus lose Chomsky), find a way to invalidate the second premise (and thus lose Chomsky), or accept the conclusion and welcome me into the truther fold, brothers and sisters!

Can I get a witness?

[noise]

13. I follow your logic

but the whole thing is absurd. These terms are pointless. If that is the point you are trying to make then I agree with you.

[Bolo Boffin]

16. Thank you, noise. n/t

[petgoat]

14. Dishonest Framing Yields Dishonest Answers

Anyone who questions any part of the 9/11 official story is a truther.

Baloney. Plenty of "It was all Clinton's fault!" jockeys question the
9/11 Commission's supposed coverup of Clinton's alleged guilt.

Just for you, I'll coin a new term. "Boloney"

[Bolo Boffin]

15. Very good, petgoat.

You have cogently invalidated the first premise. The terms OCTer and truther delineate a false dichotomy. Let us dispense with them both.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seemslikeadream]

5. And that would be of interest me

why?

[Grateful for Hope]

6. The main point of reprehensor's post

was that Chomsky signed onto the petition. This is the main point, and Loose Change is peripheral to that.

It doesn't matter what Loose Change thinks one way or the other, and, I am sure that Chomsky could care less.

Unfortunately, this is the point that was latched onto here. Given the reception that thread got in GD, it appears that most "got" the main point.

[Grateful for Hope]

3. It is number one on Greatest Page n/t

[noise]

7. I would guess

blowback is a credible explanation for Chomsky because he has such extensive knowledge of US foreign policy. Of course, many people who question 9/11 realize that blowback is a realistic possibility. The problem with this is that the alleged hijackers had too many things go their way...to the point where criminal negligence or possible complicity on the part of certain US officials should be taken into consideration. The 9/11 Commission wouldn't even consider either possibility.

Chomsky has an excellent analysis of why over five years after 9/11 there is still so much secrecy. His article is about the Iraqi occupation but IMO it also applies to 9/11:

There are, then, very powerful reasons why the US and UK are likely to try in every possible way to maintain effective control over Iraq. The US is not constructing a palatial embassy, by far the largest in the world and virtually a separate city within Baghdad, and pouring money into military bases, with the intention of leaving Iraq to Iraqis. All of this is quite separate from the expectations that matters can be arranged so that US corporations profit from the vast riches of Iraq.

These topics, though high on the agenda of planners, are not within the realm of discussion, as can easily be determined. That is only to be expected. These considerations violate the fundamental doctrine that state power has noble objectives, and while it may make terrible blunders, it can have no crass motives and is not influenced by domestic concentrations of private power. Any questioning of these Higher Truths is either ignored or bitterly denounced, also for good reasons: allowing them to be discussed could undermine power and privilege. Link

[rman]

17. Another angle

is to say that a state power that does not (only) have noble objectives and that is influenced by (i'd say trans-) domestic private powers - that if such a state performs false-flag terrorism on "it's own population", it does not really target it's "own" population. After all, such a government can hardly be said to be "of, for and by the people" - such a government primarily represents interests other than that of the people who's government it is supposed to be.
If they do it not so much to "their own people", then they don't have to be nearly as insane as they would have to be if they did do it to "their own people". If it isn't really "our government", then we or not really "their people".