Old Leftist **** says he doesn't know what happened on 9/11

[dutch508]

jakeXT (5,167 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/11356420

Our favorite left gatekeeper on 9/11
MIT professor Noam Chomsky may not know exactly how or why World Trade Center 7 collapsed on September 11, 2001, but the one thing he’s sure of is that there’s no federal conspiracy behind it.

http://rt.com/usa/noam-chomsky-911-truthers-342/

Even Noam knows the government is too stupid to pull this off. The DUmp monkiez? Not so much.

Ace Acme (890 posts)
3. What makes you think Saudis doing it means no MIHOP?

Last edited Sat Nov 30, 2013, 05:02 PM - Edit history (2)

You guys are always leaping to unjustified conclusions. Saudis doing it means MIHOP is more likely. Note how many of the alleged hijackers got their visas at the same consulate (Jedda). Note the connections between the alleged hijackers and the US military--drivers licenses with addresses at Pensacola Naval Air Station, courses at the Defense Language Institute.

(hint- while they were mostly Saudis, they were also ALL MUSLIMS!!!)

Ace Acme (890 posts)
18. Chomsky only showed his own nonsense

Last edited Fri Nov 29, 2013, 01:16 PM - Edit history (1)

Here is his argument:

A: If the Bush team had done 9/11, they would have used Iraqis and not Saudis to do the dirty deed.

B: Only if they were stupid or crazy would they use Saudis for 9/11.

C: They are not stupid or crazy

D: Therefore they did not do 9/11.


Assumption A is just plain stupid For these reasons:

1. Iraqis were rare or absent in al Qaeda. I've never heard of even one Iraqi member of al Qaeda.
2. Iraqis would have been very difficult to recruit for an attack on the USA, because they would have known that the response would be devastating attacks on their homeland. Saudis, by contrast, could be very confident that Bush would never attack their homeland.
3. Framing Iraqis would be difficult. Friends of Iraq would be very skeptical.
4. Using Saudis gave the Dominators the excuse to bomb many countries (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, AND Iraq) while use of Iraqis would only get a license to bomb Iraq
5. Using Saudis gives the plotters the cooperation of the Saudi government, while no cooperation could be expected from the Iraqi government

Assumption B is just plain stupid because it ignores all the reasons to use Saudis for 9/11.

Assumption C is just plain stupid because it is contrary to evidence. They were demonstrably stupid and crazy even if they didn't do 9/11--and if they did do 9/11, then they were even crazier (how stupid--as opposed to treasonously malign--is open to discussion).

Conclusion D: is not justified.


I don't have to prove any CTs at all. I only need to shoot holes in the silly arguments you guys put up in defense of the prevailing myths you are so desperate to believe.

OR---- they were all MUSLIMS!!!

William Seger (5,724 posts)
22. Chomsky makes sense; you do not

Let's start by accurately stating what Chomsky says in the linked video:

1. BushCo desperately wanted to invade Iraq.

2. BushCo blamed 9/11 on Saudis, not Iraqis.

3. Unless they're total lunatics, they would have blamed it on Iraqis, not Saudis, so they wouldn't have needed to fabricate claims about WMDs and al Qaeda links that quickly fell apart.

4. Therefore, either BushCo are total lunatics or they weren't involved.

5. They are not total lunatics.

6. Not stated but implied: Therefore, they weren't involved.

I assume you won't argue against 1 and 2, so your attempted refutation begins with 3, to which you say:

> 1. Iraqis were rare or absent in al Qaeda. I've never heard of even one Iraqi member of al Qaeda.

But you're really affirming Chomsky's point! If they planned the attack to justify invading Iraq, then they should want to blame it on Iraqis, not al Qaeda.

2. Iraqis would have been very difficult to recruit for an attack on the USA, because they would have known that the response would be devastating attacks on their homeland. Saudis, by contrast, could be very confident that Bush would never attack their homeland.

And "no true Scotsman..." huh. In addition to your assumption that it would be "very difficult," you failure to distinguish between "very difficult" and "impossible."

> 3. Framing Iraqis would be difficult. Friends of Iraq would be very skeptical.

First, why would the worry about that? But more importantly, since it wasn't just "friends of Iraq" who were more than "very skeptical" of the justifications they actually came up with after blaming the attack on Saudi al Qaeda, you're really just affirming Chomsky's point again.

> 4. Using Saudis gave the Dominators the excuse to bomb many countries (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, AND Iraq) while use of Iraqis would only get a license to bomb Iraq

That's such a total non sequitur it's hard to even comment on, but it appears to be another of your famous "just so" stories that doesn't actually demonstrate anything at all beyond its own assumptions.

> 5. Using Saudis gives the plotters the cooperation of the Saudi government, while no cooperation could be expected from the Iraqi government

And another. Your assumptions about who would and would not cooperate don't even really matter since you didn't establish any reason why BushCo wanted or needed cooperation from either. It's amusing that you say Chomsky's assumption "is just plain stupid" and then give as a reason that BushCo couldn't count on Iraq's "cooperation" in blaming Iraqis to justify invading Iraq.

So, Chomsky's points 1 through 3 survive your blistering rebuttal unscathed, which means the conclusion in point 4 appears to be valid and sound rather than "just plain stupid."

Your rebuttal to point 5 appears to be "Uh-huh, yeah they are lunatics! I've got evidence!" But it seems you forgot to say what evidence you have of that sort of lunacy.

So once again, you seem to be waving empty hands, and yet:

> I don't have to prove any CTs at all. I only need to shoot holes in the silly arguments you guys put up in defense of the prevailing myths you are so desperate to believe.

Self-flattery will get you nowhere. Ditto for imaginary holes; seems to me you can't hit the broad side of a barn. No, you don't have to prove any CTs, provided that you are content with being irrelevant. The "official story" will continue to be the one that makes the most sense, given the actual evidence. Either you've got a more convincing story or you don't, and you admit that you don't. You're just playing games, and not very well.

So--- the leftists, who claim that we can't use being MUSLIM as a reason for 9/11, must then come up with a reason to justify why 9/11 happened.

Um... it was MUSLIMS! (all the rest of your debate is then nul and void)

Ace Acme (890 posts)
24. Your points 3,4,5, and 6 are compleat nonsense.

More from the Seger School of Rhetoric:

Post empty assertions verbosely--those who see through you will refrain from disputing what they haven't read, those who agree with you will skim for certitude and terms like "non sequitur" and "no true Scotsman" and assume you know what you're talking about.

They had no problem getting support for attacking Iraq. 9/11 created a state of blind panic among the people, and intimidation amongst the media and the legislature. Americans can't be expected to tell Arabs from Persians, let alone Arabs from Arabs, so there was no need to blame 9/11 on Iraq--the American people did that for themselves. There was no credible threat from an international band of fanatical Iraqi Muslims. It was far more advantageous to blame Islam itself instead of the secular Iraqi regime.

I didn't say BushCo needed cooperation. I said they could expect it from the Saudis and not the Iraqis. For instance, the Iraqi government could be expected to deny Bush claims that they did 9/11. The Saudi government did not deny that Saudis did 9/11.

The Bush actions--torture, illegal war, illegal surveillance--are those of a madman (whether he was truly mad, or it was just going to be his defense at any criminal trials is open to question).

If the leftists around the world continue to be blind to the fact that MUSLIMs (extremeists or not) ARE responible for the rise in terror around the globe then we will loose everything.

[JohnnyReb]

When communist don't even believe their fellow communist = con-spear-ray see.

[Bad Dog]

Time to get the chicken wire out again.

[JohnnyReb]

Time to get the chicken wire out again.

....and the light weight cinder block.

[obumazombie]

....and the light weight cinder block.

I like where you're going with this.

[beefeater]

Time to get the chicken wire out again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x56836

[Mr Mannn]

I think 9-11 scares the liberals. When flags showed up everywhere the flag hating libs were threatened. When they opened the traitorous mouths and tried to blame America, they were shouted down from all sides-even their own.

I think the libs were convinced they had defeated Patriotism and were ready to install a socialist state. They were shocked to learn it just wasn't so. The rats had no intention to vote for war, but had no choice.

9-11 and Reagan remind libs just how mortal they truly are.

[vesta111]

I think 9-11 scares the liberals. When flags showed up everywhere the flag hating libs were threatened. When they opened the traitorous mouths and tried to blame America, they were shouted down from all sides-even their own.

I think the libs were convinced they had defeated Patriotism and were ready to install a socialist state. They were shocked to learn it just wasn't so. The rats had no intention to vote for war, but had no choice.

9-11 and Reagan remind libs just how mortal they truly are.

I still want to know how they got into the country, how long they lived in Maine and who sent them money to live on and pay for their flight schools.

I am really surprised the media was not all over Portland Maine trying to find people that knew them be it a landlord or someone at a garage they bought gas from, or any of their neighbors.  Did they all live together or were they scattered about the town? Who had the money to back them had to have had some inside help in Maine to get the ball rolling, a place to live and ID cards.

It is strange that they managed to move about the country at times, faithful Muslims they must have attended a few Muslim Temples and made contacts with like minded Muslims. I know there is a Muslim Temple in or near Portland so that may have been why they chose to go there. Plus it is a straight shot down the highway to Boston and beyond.

Box cutters, a brilliant choice of weapon, wonder who came up with that idea ?

Interesting people who collectively decided to commit  suicide and take out as many
people as they could.  Now are we to believe these young men got together and decided on their own to attack the Towers, by learning to fly these planes into them, and hit the Pentagon and what ever else the 3'rd plane that crashed was headed for ?

I cannot believe any of them had the brains or the money to pull this off themselves.  Had to be an organized group overseas that sent them here.   They must have looked high and low for the top religious fanatics that would fit the bill and using American Muslims that were just one step down in fanaticism to encourage them in their quest.

These men were not well trained in war, had they been they would not have hit the towers in mid level, they would have gone as low as they could to cause even more destruction.  Had they hit much lower very few would have gotten out.

Just my take on 911 and this bull shit that America had anything to do with it, well it frosts my Liver.