911 truth

Former Italian President Cossiga: CIA and Mossad ran 9/11

Editorial note: The article below appeared on 911blogger. After posting it, I had second thoughts, prompted in part by charges of anti-semetism against Cossiga in a LarvatusProdeo forum. I the following comment to the forum on 911blogger.com in response to this article - JS.

I did post this to our web site, but I have had second thoughts, prompted by a charge of anti-semetism against Francesco Cossiga on a forum on which 9/11 is being discussed in Australia.

Firstly, learning that the quote is two years out of date makes this problematic.

Also the term "Zionist world" does make it appear anti-Semetic.

Even if it is not ant-Semetic, I still have concerns with the viewpoint that seems to place Israel and Zionism at the centre of nearly everything that is wrong with the world today and that is what the translated statement appears to imply.

I can accept that Mossad may have played a role in 9/11 and had an interest in getting the US and European nations go to war against Afghanistan and Iraq, but, until I see stronger evidence I am not conviced that Israel and Mossad were the principle instigators of 9/11 as Cossiga seems to be saying.

If Fancesco Cossiga himself had a role in setting up Operation Gladio I need to better understand why he blew the whistle on it. One person here has he had no choice.

I also note that Francesco Cossiga is not listed at .

So has Waarheid911 been premature in claiming Cossiga as amongst those who question 9/11?

Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga, who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio, has told Italy's oldest and most widely read newspaper that the 9-11 terrorist attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad, and that this was common knowledge among global intelligence agencies. In what translates awkwardly into English, Cossiga told the newspaper Corriere della Sera:

"All the [intelligence services] of America and Europeknow well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the Mossad, with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part in Iraq [and] Afghanistan."

Cossiga was elected president of the Italian Senate in July 1983 before winning a landslide election to become president of the country in 1985, and he remained until 1992.

Cossiga's tendency to be outspoken upset the Italian political establishment, and he was forced to resign after revealing the existence of, and his part in setting up, Operation Gladio. This was a rogue intelligence network under NATO auspices that carried out bombings across Europe in the 1960s, 1970s and '80s. Gladio's specialty was to carry out what they termed "false flag" operations-terror attacks that were blamed on their domestic and geopolitical opposition.

In March 2001, Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra stated, in sworn testimony, "You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security."

Cossiga first expressed his doubts about 9-11 in 2001, and is quoted by 9-11 researcher Webster Tarpley saying "The mastermind of the attack must have been a sophisticated mind, provided with ample means not only to recruit fanatic kamikazes, but also highly specialized personnel. I add one thing: it could not be accomplished without infiltrations in the radar and flight security personnel."

Coming from a widely respected former head of state, Cossiga's assertion that the 9-11 attacks were an inside job and that this is common knowledge among global intelligence agencies is illuminating. It is one more eye-opening confirmation that has not been mentioned by America's propaganda machine in print or on TV. Nevertheless, because of his experience and status in the world, Cossiga cannot be discounted as a crackpot.

Originally on My Auburn on 18 Sep 09. Also on 911blogger.com
See also: story about FBI whistleblower, Sibel Edmonds, of 31 Jul 09.

My submission to the Human Rights Consultation on National Security

Today after some toing and froing, I learnt that my to the concerning , submitted on Friday 19 June, had been published.

Note: A link to my submission is on the page referred to just above. A mouse click on that page should cause a copy of the pdf file to be downloaded although other means of downloading, such as the use of the Linux utility wget does not. So the command "wget http://www.humanrightsconsultation.gov.au/www/nhrcc/submissions.nsf/list/D459E9F1D35E1BA9CA25762A00063C12/$file/James_SINNAMON_AGWW-7T293B.pdf" won't cause the file to download. - JS, 21 Jun 11.

I learnt on 2 September that it was not to be published because it was claimed that "the content of the submission could be construed to be defamatory." In a response, I asked that the defamatory content be shown to me. I pointed out that the closest thing I could find to a defamatory statement was, in fact, a statement of the truth. That was the following statement:

"Many who question the official version of 9/11 go as far as to argue that, because of mountains of physical evidence which contradicts the official story and the fact that senior members of the Bush administration have been caught out lying and contradicting themselves, there is a prima facie case that members of the Bush administration themselves were complicit in the September 11 attacks."

Moreover, I pointed out that statements, made since 11 September 2001 by former President George W Bush, President Barack Obama and our own Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, without any proof, that Islamist extremists, operating from sanctuaries inside Afghanistan and Pakistan, had orchestrated the terrorist atrocities of 9/11, Bali, the London Tube Bombing, the Madrid Train Bombings, etc., were, in fact defamatory, or, indeed worse than defamatory, because they had become the pretexts for wars of aggression and the deaths of at least many hundreds of thousands of innocent people, the maiming of hundreds of thousands more and the displacement of millions.

I pointed out that to censor my document, without any proper legal basis, would have made a mockery of the purpose of the Human Rights Consultation, given that one of the issues it was meant to investigate was .

Happily, my points were taken and I learnt only today that all four submissions, including my submission on "National security and terrorism" had been published.-fn3">3

I include the submission further below, together with a minor correction, which will be pointed out that I asked them to make.

I expect that many will find the content as confronting as I did, when people tried to put the same to me until up to two years ago.

Nevertheless, I strongly urge people not only to consider carefully what I have written, but also do your own research. By all means, also read material which purports to debunk the views of those who reject the official explanation of 9/11 Two such sites are and (the latter being what I found to be a very unconvincing response to the web-site of "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" ()). I found it especially useful, in the early stages, to read debates between 9/11 Truthers and 9/11 Deniers. That made it possible for me to judge the comparative quality of arguments put forward by both camps and, indeed, which side of the discussion was even addressing the evidence. It also allowed me to learn what are the major arguments use on both sides of the discussion. One such discussion is the now finished Online Opinion discussion .

Please don't be put off if you happen to stumble across people for whom you have had high regard who assure you that the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement is "completely nuts" as is fond of saying. If they won't bother explaining why they think so (except to appeal to the authority of other supposedly credible people and personally attack 9/11 Truthers), then remain sceptical. People whom I previously had a high regard for who insist on the truth of the Official Conspiracy Theory discourage any independent verification of the 9/11 controversy, include , Alexander Cockburn editor of the the ostensibly left wing US magazine , the aforementioned Phillip Adams and famous supposed 'sceptics' James Randi and . Nearly all the alternative newsmedia and incredibly, the far left, seemingly unanimously, promote the Official Conspiracy Theory and dismiss the claims of the 9/11 Truth Movement. (see also )

One thing we can all be certain of is that if I am wrong, as so many have insisted that I am, then the Human Rights Commission will face little difficulty in shooting down my arguments in flames and making me appear to be a fool.

I am not expecting this to occur.

Submission to Human Rights Consultation concerning Terrorism and National Security

This submission disputes the entire justification for the draconian anti-terrorist laws that have taken away from ordinary citizens, basic human rights and civil liberties that were once taken for granted in Australia.

As few cannot be unaware the justification for these draconian laws and the associated imposts upon our daily lives such as airport security checks-fn1">1 was the spectacular and deadly terrorist attack of 11 September 2001, the anthrax scare that shortly ensued and a number of other deadly terrorist attacks that have occurred since then - Bali, the Madrid bombing and the London Tube bombing.

Much of Australian public opinion had come to accept that the curtailments of our rights are a price well worth paying in order to prevent similar tragedies from ever occurring on our own shores.

Official account of 9/11, the basis for anti-terrorist legislation, disputed by many credible authoritative public figures

However, a large number of credible, authoritative and well known figures as well as a substantial sections of public opinion in the United States, and even more so, outside the United States question the official explanations of these attacks. They argue that the evidence that the attacks were perpetrated by a ubiquitous world wide terrorist network known as 'al Qaeda' has never been produced. They also argue that the investigations by the 9/11 Commission and the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) failed to ask many critical questions and ignored a great deal of evidence submitted to them.

The supposed evidence of Al Qaeda's guilt that was given to NATO by Colin Powell in order to win NATO's participation in the so-called 'war on terror' has never been made public and the evidence promised by Colin Powell to the United Nations, that would have legally made the United Nations a participant in the 'war on terror', was never produced.

Many have therefore called for the holding of a new and thorough investigation that would properly examine all the physical evidence, take account of all witnesses' statements and have the power to subpoena key players in the events of 9/11 including former President George W Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice.

Indeed, it seems as if the City of New York may very well soon be conducting its own investigation into 9/11 as the group New York City Coalition for Accountability Now (NYCCAN - http://nyccan.com) has succeeded in collecting, as of 14 June 2009, 47,767 signatures of residents of New York City which asks that New York City hold a ballot within 3 months to decide whether or not an investigation into 9/11 be set up by New York City. This number exceeds the number of 45,000 that would make the holding of the ballot mandatory.

Many who question the official version of 9/11 go as far as to argue that, because of mountains of physical evidence which contradicts the official story and the fact that senior members of the Bush administration have been caught out lying and contradicting themselves, there is a prima facie case that members of the Bush administration themselves were complicit in the September 11 attacks.

People who are calling for a new investigation include:

  • Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret). Colonel Bowman was a fighter pilot who who flew 100 missions in the Vietnam war. He served on President Ronald Reagan's Star Wars program.
  • General Wesley Clark, U.S. Army (ret) former head of NATO.
  • Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret) Colonel Nelson is an experienced air crash investigator who states that the physical evidence at the crash sites of United Airways Flight 95 flatly contradicts the official account. (see http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson).
  • Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, MS Aeronautical Science, U.S. Air Force (ret)
  • Raymond L. McGovern - Former Chairman, National Intelligence Estimates. Responsible for preparing the President's Daily Brief (PDB) for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. 27-year CIA veteran. Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer.
  • William Christison - Former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, a 250-person unit responsible for political analysis of every country and region in the world. 29-year CIA veteran.
  • US Senator Max Cleland - Former member of the 9/11 Commission.
  • Morgan Reynolds-fn2">2 - Chief Economist, U.S. Department of Labor under George W. Bush 2001 - 2002.
  • Paul Craig Roberts - Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury under Ronald Reagan.
  • Daniel Ellsberg - Author of "The Pentagon Papers" which told the world the truth about the Vietnam War.
  • Paul Hellyer - Former Minister of National Defense of Canada.
  • Michael Meacher - Former Under Secretary for Industry, Under Secretary for Health and Social Security, Minister for the Environment, and Member of the House of Commons (UK).
  • Tony Benn - Former Member of British Parliament 1942 - 2001.
  • Andreas von Buelow, PhD - Former State Secretary of the Federal Ministry of Defense of West Germany.
  • Horst Ehmke, PhD - Former Minister of Justice (West Germany). Former Minister for Research and Technology.
  • Francesco Cossiga - President of Italy (1985 - 1992) and Former Prime Minister.
  • Yukihisa Fujita - Member, House of Councillors (the upper house), National Diet of Japan.
  • Jeanette Fitzsimons - Greens Member of Parliament, New Zealand, 1996 - present.
  • General Leonid Ivashov - Former Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces.

Many more who are calling for a new investigation are listed on the web site

Abundant solid evidence in contradiction with the official account of the 9/11 attacks can be found on many sites including http://ae911truth.org (Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth) and

If these people are right -- and I believe they are -- then Australia's efforts to combat terrorism are not directed towards where the real terrorist threat lies.

Bali Bombing

In regard to the terrorist threat much closer to home, on 12 October 2004 former president, Abdurrahman Wahid said in an interview with SBS that he believed that either the Indonesian military or the Indonesian police planted the second larger bomb which destroyed the Sari Club. This allegation has never been properly investigated.


Before discussing the appropriateness or otherwise of the measures now in place to combat terrorism, the Human Rights consultation needs to evaluate firstly how real is that threat and secondly from what quarters the terrorist threat, if it exists, is likely to come from.

The Human Rights Consultation should therefore at least seriously look at the abundant evidence which stands in contradiction to the official accounts of terrorists atrocities in recent years and try to bring about renewed and proper investigations. Furthermore, it should give its full support to those people overseas who are seeking to bring about proper investigations into 9/11, the London Tube Bombings, the Madrid Train bombings, the Bali bombings etc.


-fn1" id="main-fn1">1. -fn1-txt">↑ My initial submission erroneously added "and
the banning of the ownership of megaphones". I had been told that Prime Minister John Howard had deemed the megaphone a 'terrorist weapon' and had outlawed them, but I could not obtain any corroboration for that statement.

-fn2" id="main-fn2">2. -fn2-txt">↑ Morgan Reyolds holds views not shared by the mainstream of the 9/11 Truth Movement and which are easy for the 'debunkers' to debunk. These include that the WTC Twin Towers were destroyed by particle beams from outer space and that the aircraft seen to fly into each of the respective WTC Twin Towers were, in fact, holograms. Many people purporting to be 9/11 Truthers promote such views in obvious attempts to discredit the 9/11 as a whole. What motivates such a high profile 9/11 Truther as Morgan Reynolds to promote views which are damaging to the 9/11 Truth Movement is unclear. Had I been aware that he held these views I would not have included his name in this list.

-fn3" id="main-fn3">3. -fn3-txt">↑ Correction made on 30 May 2011. Sentence before correction omitted the concluding words "had been published.".

9/11 truth links

. See also NineMSN story .

The story begins debunking a UFO story and then for no logical reason, uses the opportunity to take a cheap shot at the 9/11 Truth Movement:

But where UFOs were once the main source of paranoid fixations, it is now incidents like the 9/11 terror attacks that are the focus of such obsessions.

Clinical psychologist Anthony Gunn told ninemsn that while conspiracy theories about UFOs have decreased in recent years due to more frequent distribution of footage by NASA, the basic psychology behind the phenomenon remained strong.

"When a lot of people feel they are in a situation where they don't have much power, figuring out conspiracy theories gives them a sense of control," he said.

"It's a huge area, the whole conspiracy thing — it can also be fuelled by paranoia, which in turn can be fuelled by drugs or stress, but it usually comes back to power or control issues."

Mr Gunn attributed the behaviour to cognitive dissonance, where people who are forced to hold two conflicting beliefs re-correct one to alleviate the psychological pain.

... (blah, blah, blah) ...

"Coming back to conspiracy theories, people may have learnt that 9/11 didn't happen the way they suspect it.

... (blah, blah, blah) ...

Of course, Anthony Gunn would not consider 'paranoid' a belief in the existence of a world-wide Islamic terrorist network known as 'Al Qaeda' that is so diabolical and deadly that we must unquestioningly accept changes in our constitution, removal of basic democratic rights and civil liberties, the degrading searches that we undergo every time we board an airplane and the militarisation of our society such as what occurred during the 2007 APEC summit in Sydney.

The mountains of hard physical evidence upon which the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement is founded, of course, is never discussed by the Australian newsmedia.

For such evidence, please visit , , , , etc.


Noam Chomsky, phony American dissident

Noam Chomsky, a supposed US dissident, in fact, uses his influence amongst progressive people to convince them of ideas that serve the interest of the same US elites he purports to oppose. These include acceptance of the lone crazed gunman explanation of the JFK assassination and the dismissal of the overwhelming evidence pointing to senior figures within the administration of former US President George W Bush as the perpetrators of the 9/11 atrocity.

See also: YouTube broadcast
Update: , 25 Dec 09.

Of the overwhelming evidence which contradicted the official explanation that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman who murdered President John F Kennedy in 1963, Noam Chomsky said:

"I mean, who knows? And who cares? I mean plenty of people get killed all the time. Why does it matter that one of them happened to be John F Kennedy?" (See YouTube broadcast )

Chomsky insists that Oswald, acting alone, murdered President John F Kennedy, but also says that even if it was not the case, and he was, indeed, murdered by people within the US administration, why should it matter?

The answer should have been obvious. If it was purely bad luck that Kennedy was murdered, then other political figures, opposed to the establishment, would have little to fear. People such as Barack Obama who were (once) thought to pose a threat to the US corporate elites would have had little reason to fear that those corporate elites would be so ruthless and so unconscionable as to conspire to have him killed, contrary to what many of his supporters openly feared would happen. Strangely, even people such as Australia's Phillip Adams, who refuses to consider JFK and 9/11 'conspiracy theories', expressed this fear for Barack Obama before he was elected.

If, on the other hand, there was a conspiracy to murder JFK as many credible people argue, because he posed a threat to powerful vested interests who wanted to escalate the Vietnam War, then surely others, who stand opposed to those vested interests, should also fear assassination.

Clearly it must matter whether or not a gunman acting alone murdered JFK and Chomsky could not possibly have been so stupid as to not have understood that. The only possible reason why Chomsky would choose to insist that it does not is to allow him to avoid having to openly defend the lone crazed gunman theory, which has happily peddled on other occasions.

In fact, in the same decade, three of the other most charismatic and effective leaders opposed to the US establishment also met violent deaths in suspicious circumstances that were never properly investigated - Malcolm X, Martin Luther King and Robert F Kennedy.

In all cases, Noam Chomsky insisted that there was nothing suspicious. Almost certainly, because of the influence he wielded amongst progressive circles, many who would have otherwise followed the trail that would have led to the killers of JFK, Malcolm X, MLK and RFK were dissuaded from doing so.

Thus the left of the 1960's was decapitated and those responsible were never unmasked and brought to justice.

Shortly after the terrorist attack of 11 September 2001 Chomsky pronounced that Al Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden had indeed master-minded the attacks, just as George Bush had insisted. Those who questioned the official account and pointed to the glaring contradictions and absurdities of the official account of 9/11 were dismissed by Chomsky as conspiracy theorists.

Once again, many, who held Chomsky in high regard, were dissuaded from questioning the official 9/11 fiction, thus leaving unchallenged the huge propaganda advantage that made it possible for the US rulers to overcome public opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq and numerous attacks on civil liberties and democratic freedoms in the West.

During my participation in the protest movement against the invasion of Iraq in 2003, I never personally doubted the official 9/11 explanation nor was I aware of anyone else who questioned it, such was the influence of the likes of Chomsky on the anti-war movement in Australia.

Barrie Zwicker has -fn1">1

how Noam Chomsky is a practitioner of the 'bait and switch' technique. The 'bait' is his many scholarly works which show up many of the crimes of the US rulers (although rarely accompanied by practical suggestions as to how to prevent these crimes). The 'switch' are ideas that serve the interests of the US rulers. These include acceptance of the lone crazed gunman explanation of the JFK assassination and the dismissal of the overwhelming evidence pointing to senior figures within the administration as the perpetrators of the 9/11 atrocity.


Postscript: (19 July) In spite of the damning critique of Noam Chomsky by Zwicker, and Chomsky's failure to acknowledge, let alone respond to that critique, many progressives, even amongst those aware of the truth of 'false flag' attacks such as 9/11, still accord Chomsky credibility that he clearly does not deserve. One of many possible examples is the publication of the article also by Information Clearing House. Whatever may be the merit of that article, the fact remains that Chomsky has done enormous harm to the causes he claims to support and will continue to harm those causes until more people are able to see him for what he is.


Appendix 1: Online forum discussion about influence of Noam Chomsky in Australia

So, far, on two occasions, when I have participated in online forums, my detractors have referred to my low regard for Noam Chomsky as expressed in this article in attempts to discredit the views I had put to those forums. The following are recent posts to a Larvatus Prodeo discussion about 9/11:

-825973">18 Sep 09:

Interesting. Daggett is making a claim about 9/11 that as far as I’m aware no-one been able to refute. Everytime I ask the free fall question I get treated like a loony but no-one can tell me how it works.

They'll link to some complex document that has a lot of equations and fancy theories that explains how such a freak occurrence is possible and there’s nothing untoward about it happening three times on one morning in one place. There’s citations of various experts who've written debunking articles but those I've read can’t explain it either.

Can you? Can you understand? Because this is what Noam Chomsky refers to when he talks about the manufacturing of consent. The issue is inherently outré . This is how Foucault describes our power structure as a demarker of normality, morality, sanity and those that fall outside.

And it’s interesting that people who've read books by both men somehow play the game they’re describing. By all means ban Daggett. S/he’s obviously crazy.

My comment: Whilst Chomsky was cited in my defence here, I felt most anxious that the undeserved credibility given to Chomsky not be left to stand. I was helped somewhat in this, when further along, one of my detractors wrote:

-826069">18 Sep 09:

Interesting. Daggett is making a claim about 9/11 that as far as I’m aware no-one been able to refute. Everytime I ask the free fall question I get treated like a loony but no-one can tell me how it works.

To be fair, Adrien, this happens even when you don’t ask the free-fall question.

As to Chomsky, Daggett will explain to you that Chomsky is a phony, because he accepts the “official conspiracy theory”. [see]

That is convincing proof of just how vast and pernicious the cover-up is, wouldn't you say?

My response was:

-826069">18 Sep 09:

Why is the Australian far-left seemingly unanimous in its resolve (as Paul Craig Roberts pointed out -825585">above (on LP)) to defend ground which accepts that terrorists, from the region in which our armies are now fighting wars that they say they oppose, did launch 9/11, 7/7 the Madrid bombings, Bali, etc, but refuse to even contemplate examining evidence that would enable them to shift to ground which I would have thought would be much easier to defend, that is, the ground on which it is maintained that the US government itself committed the crimes which it has knowingly and falsely blamed on so-called Muslim extremists. (Words from earlier discussion on Online Opinion about the movie 'Balibo'.) Why, instead of calmly asssessing the evidence to determine whether it just might be true, do so many on the supposed left of Australian politics, instead, spill bucketloads of electronic ink personally attacking 9/11 Truthers?

Noam Chomsky

Of course, part of the reason, but only part, must lie with the influence of Noam Chomsky, who is regarded as an unquestionable guru by many in Australia. In spite of the fact that Noam Chomsky has written some good ideas as Missy Higgins -825973">pointed out, I am, nevertheless, convinced that he is a fraud.

In fact, Noam Chomsky, himself, has acted contrary to many of his own good ideas.

Very shortly after the 9/11 attacks, he produced an article which essentially accepted the Official US Government 9/11 Conspiracy and has spent much of his energy since then attacking the 9/11 Truth Movement.

This, together with Chomsky's absurd insistence that there was nothing suspicious about the murders, in the 1960's, of all four of America's most charismatic and effective political leaders who were prepared to stand up to America's oligarchy -- JFK, Malcolm X, MLK and RFK -- has resulted in some, including an erstwhile protege, Canadian Barrie Zwicker to question Chomsky's true motives.

I have written some of this in the brief article that GregM mentioned. I urge people to read that article and to follow the links to other articles and YouTube Broadcasts. The Short Youtube Broadcast by Barrie Zwicker linked to from there is well worth looking at.

I would be most interested to know if GregM concurs with Chomsky's view:

I mean, who knows? And who cares? I mean plenty of people get killed all the time. Why does it matter that one of them happened to be John F Kennedy?

I consider Chomsky's ludicrous -826015">position on Cambodia, which he inexplicably held on to even as late as early this century to be a component of his overall disinformation effort.

Sometime earlier this decade I heard an interview of Chomsky by fellow left gatekeeper Phillip Adams. In that interview he accused the media of being hypocritical for focusing on Cambodia in the late 1970's instead of on East Timor. It may well be that for a while some of the media was hypocritical, but his point seemed ludicrous. If anything, the Cambodian genocide was an even greater crime than Indonesia's invasion of East Timor.

Sadly, some on the left had an emotional need to deny that those who had 'liberated' Cambodia in 1975 were gencocidal killers, but surely years after the Khmer Rouge had been used as a tool by the West against the Vietnamese who removed that genocidal regime, that emotional need should have long disappeared.

However, the greatest harm that is done when Chomsky effectively apologises for Khmer Rouge crimes, is not to himself, but to others who oppose US foreign policy, whom the broader public assumes to share his views.

" id="appendix2">Appendix 2: Comments from forum in response to video "America is not a Democracy"

The of a particularly unoriginal and unremarkable 10 minute video "America is not a Democracy," featuring Noam Chomsky on information Clearing House, attracted, so far , many of them highly critical. Here are some, including a response from myself:

I have noticed that Chomsky never offers a viable strategy to stop these oligarchs. All he advises is people keep doing things that have been shown to be ineffective or marginally effective at best.

Chomsky offers an analysis that only considers part of the factors. He picks and chooses to suit his preordained conclusion. In real science, that is not acceptable. Chomsky knows this. When you skew the analysis to fix the results, you end up being no different than a propagandist or a crook. It's dishonest. It prevents real solutions to problems being pursued. It makes the problems worse. He may provide valuable information sometimes, but there is always important pieces missing from the story. Important parts whose absence prevents a person really understanding what they are up against and making workable personal choices to work on turning things around. I have noticed that Chomsky never offers a viable strategy to stop these oligarchs. All he advises is people keep doing things that have been shown to be ineffective or marginally effective at best.


Anonymous and chumpsRus wrote: "I have noticed that Chomsky never offers a viable strategy to stop these oligarchs."

You've stolen my thunder.

It is striking how little useful advice Chomsky has ever had to offer, in over four decades, to those who may want to build an alternative to the political system he ostensibly denounces.

I thought his attempt to diminish those who fought to reverse the rorting of the 2000 Presidential elections was particularly low.

Yes, obviously the alternative to Bush was far from ideal, but how can Chomsky then conclude from that, that when Fox News and the whole US oligarchy acted in concert to ensure that their chosen glove puppet was installed rather than Al Gore, the candidate who legally won those elections, it was of no concern?

That stolen election laid the groundwork for 9/11 and well over 1 million deaths in wars that 9/11 was used as a pretext for, but of course, as noted by others, Chomsky refuses to speak the truth about the 9/11 false flag terrorist attack and, before that, the murders of JFK. Malcolm X, MLK and RFK.


The most evil political propaganda manipulators are the ones who give the most truth and the most subtle lies.

The most evil political propaganda manipulators are the ones who give the most truth and the most subtle lies.

The essence of a good shill is that they hardly ever lie and are full of true facts and real information. Chomsky may sound good and he may have many good facts but anyone who shilled for token Obama must be called out as a political liar. Obama has been a disaster so far for USA and the rest of the world.

The essence of a good shill is that they hardly ever lie and are full of true facts and real information.

Just like the bible says you have to be very careful of wolves in sheep clothing. this Chomsky is a very skilled and highly trained intelligence asset. If he wasn't why would he be allowed to criticise government for all his life while holding government posts? After all it would be pretty easy to neutralise him.

the hierarchy is obsolete,

Editorial comment on previous comment: I think the concluding paragraph is largely correct, but, in a way that was probably unintended, it could be seen as an excuse, if not for obvious US Government shills like Chomsky, at least for academics who remain silent about crimes committed by the US Government.

If Chomsky had spoken the truth about the assassinations of JFK, etc. back in the 1960's, then, obviously he would have faced retaliation. Anyone who sincerely opposes an unjust status quo has to be prepared to pay a price for doing so.

However, there is no automatic guarantee that such retaliation would have succeeded. Had Chomsky been sacked or obviously victimised in some way, there would be every reason to hope that the American public would have rallied to his support.

Furhermore, there is every reason to expect that the efforts of people like Jim Garrison to bring to justice the murderers of JFK would have succeeded. They, and those who protected them within the US state and the corporate sector would have been unmasked, tried and, at least, jailed for the rest of their lives. The hold of the Invisible Government over US politics would have been broken, the Vietnam war would have been ended years sooner, sparing millions of lives in Indo-China and tens of thousands of US lives and the course of history of the latter half of the 20th century would have been altogether different.

However, instead, Chomsky used the considerable prestige he enjoyed amongst most progressive people, to cause Jim Garrison to fail. Consequently, the history of the late 20th century and early 21st century world history turned out the way it did, largely thanks to Chomsky.

Related material

of 31 Oct 09

of 5 Sep 06
- a contrary view.

Forum Discussions

Forum discussion, including from this article on (thanks, StingRay :))
of 5 Nov 09 on 911blogger.com
of 6 Nov 09 on 911blogger.com
of 29 Oct 09 on truthaction.org

">Appendix 1: The role of media disinformation in Syria


Editorial comment: whilst the above interview contains useful material to counter lies against Syria from the mainstream media and phony anti-war activists in the mould of Noam Chomsky, I take exception to a supporter of Syria needlessly giving ammunition to enemies of Syria with claims that Syria needs to be 'reformed'.

A more extreme variant of this myth is that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is corrupt and a brutal ruler. This from the list of speakers at the recent "Stop The War" conference in the UK.

Whilst no country, particularly one which has fought foreign aggression for almost 3 years as Syria has done, can claim to be perfect, many aspects of the Syrian system are vastly better than those of most other countries, particularly countries whose governments are hostile to Syria. Examples include: free education all the way to tertiary level and free medicine. Rather than advocating 'reform', supporters of Syria should make known to the wider world how the Syrian government helps its ownpeople and campaign for their own governments to emulate Syria's fine example.

">Appendix 2: James Corbett on Noam Chomsky, Academic Gatekeeper


Meet Noam Chomsky, Academic Gatekeeper

Above video can also be on the of 28 Oct 2013.



-fn1" id="main-fn1">1. -fn1-txt">↑ If you follow , you will notice on the top left-hand an image and a caption which implies that the plane which struck the South Tower was a holographic image (as of 29 Aug 09). The image shows Flight 175 plunging into the South Tower with the comment, "Real planes don't do this." From that distance at that instant Flight 175 appears to be flying through South Tower as if either the South Tower was not real, Flight 175 was not real real or both were not real. This has led some to claim that the flights which hit the Twin Towers were holographic images.

In fact, it is hardly surprising that it should appear thus given that passenger airlines such as the Boeing 767-222 which was used for the doomed Flight 175 are constructed of light weight aluminium and that the much of the material comprising the outer walls of the Twin Towers were not of great strength, unlike the inner core of the buildings.

That some in the 9/11 Truth Movement have seized upon this to claim that Flights 11 and 175 must have been holographic images is unfortunate. Undoubtedly, many working to to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement on behalf of the US Government give such people every encouragement. Other ludicrous claims made by ostensible 9/11 Truth activists include that the explosions that brought down the Twin Towers were, in fact, caused by by mini-thermonuclear bombs (i.e. mini hydrogen bombs) or that the Twin Towers were destroyed by lasers from outer space. Such claims have been repudiated by serious knowledgeable 9/11 Truth activists.

In spite of that unfortunate image caption on 'Ningen's blog' on which the interview with Barrie Zwicker is embedded, the video is well worth the 45 minutes it takes to watch. The direct link to the video is .

9/11 Truth discussed on Online Opinion

This is intended to be a summary of the discussion on Online Opinion entitled about the devastating Terrorist attack on 11 September 2001.

Background to this discussion

My request to discuss the September 11 terrrorist attacks on was initially rejected. After I questioned the reasons for rejection (see below), it was subsequently approved.

However, the discussion was marred by relentless personal attacks and the usual time-consuming debating ploys, which comprise much of the 280 contributions posted to the . In spite of this the forum contains a lot of useful material, and those who are prepared to wade through the forum will find very good contributions and, I believe, will see that the case of the 9/11 Truth movement does withstand the test of argument.

Nevertheless, that is a difficult undertaking for most users. This article is intended to guide users through the maze and to deconstruct the attempts to prevent them from understanding the issues.

Unsurprisingly, I was attacked relentlessly for having questioned the official U.S. Government explanation of the September 11 attacks, not only from the usual right-wing suspects, but also from ostensible left-wingers. One who claimed to be a member of the Greens Party was particularly venal.

The discussion was frustrated by the limitations of a forum such as Online Opinion and this was not helped by the moderator's hostility to me. At one point, when I made a simple request that a post I made which contained an error be deleted after I had re-written it without the error, he responded:

There is a limit to how much I am going to do to clean-up others mistakes. In this case I'm going to decline.

Instead of composing and sending me this e-mail, he could have simply clicked at most two times, I would have thought, in order to remove the redundant post and helped remove at least a small amount of confusing clutter from the discussion.

During my research, I learnt that in September 2005, British soldiers, dressed as Arabs, had been caught by Iraqi police in Basra, in a booby-trapped car just before a religious ceremony. They were arrested on suspicion of planning to blow up the car around crowds fo worshipers to make it appear as a sectarian attack. However the local British commander attacked the Police station with 10 tanks and helicopter support, even though they were supposed to be cooperating with the Iraqi police in the fight against terrorism. Local Iraqis tried to defend the Police station, but the British soldiers broke in and freed the suspects before they could be questioned. The British Government later 'apologised' to the Iraqi Government over this incident. See in Global Research, Canada.

I requested a forum be started up to discuss this with the title. "Who is responsible for the sectarian killings in Iraq", but it was refused. The moderator wrote to me:

Your general discussion thread entitled "Who is really behind the bloody sectarian killings in Iraq?" has been rejected by the moderator.

I can't see this going anywhere that the previous thread didn't.

Requests to prevent one other contributor who had stated openly he intended to disrupt the discussion were met with either hostility or indifference.

Clearly Online Opinion is not the free and open discussion that it's chief editor Graham Young would have everyone believe it to be. Honest well-meaning debaters, including, I would hold, myself, are often subject to intense abuse by people whose conduct would be easily recongnised by any responsible moderator as disruptive, so much so, that a good many people I know simply don't consider Online Opinion worth participating. On top of that, requests to discuss very relevant and current issues which are likely to attract considerable interest, are rejected, whilst discussions on many seemingly are approved.

Of course, that's the right of the managers of Online Opinion to do so, but there should be no pretence that this is not the case.

(To be continued)

Appendix - Email Questioning stated reasons for rejection of proposed "9/11 Truth" forum

Dear National Forum administrator,

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008, Forum Administrator wrote:
> Dear James Sinnamon,
> Your general discussion thread entitled "9/11 Truth" has been rejected by
> the moderator.
> Can you reword? I don't have an in-principle issue with the post, but I
> don't want to encourage the propagation of multiple threads relating back
> to other threads. If it is a genuinely new thread, then that's OK, but if
> it is a response to discussion on another thread, then it should go on the
> original thread, not a new one.

I don't follow your argument. Why can't a discussion thread be both a new
thread and relate back to another thread? What is wrong with referring to
other discussions on OLO, or, indeed, anywhere else?

My motivation was to repond to what was written about on another thread
on "Winning the Iraq War" without dragging the discussion into claims and
counter-claims about the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Would you prefer that the discussion of the 9/11 attacks as well as discussion
on "Was the subversion of democracy in the 'free world' necessary to fight
the 'evil' of 'communism'?" to have continued on the Forum about the Iraq War
at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2052#45928 , or
would you prefer that the discussion not be held at all?


James Sinnamon

> Regards,
> National Forum Administrator

Unanswered questions about 9/11

Most opponents of George Bush's policies have assumed that the 9/11 attacks were probably the result of incompetence which conveniently served the goals of the Bush administration. Those who have held the view that the Bush administration itself may have had a hand in the attacks, have, up till recently been dismissed as crank conspiracy theorists. However, a , reputable commentators are disputing the official Bush Administration's conspiracy theory.