The UK Home Secretary Priti Patel can now sign off on Julian Assange’s extradition to the US at any moment. Extradition will mean that Julian faces the potential of 175 years in prison for exposing US war crimes and corruption.
If he is imprisoned, it will be by the very state whose crimes he exposed. These are the same revelations that Julian and Wikileaks received Journalism accolades around the world for, including Australia’s most prestigious prize, The Walkley Award.
The UK judge had decided to block the US request for Julian's extradition, on medical grounds. Now the US government is seeking to overturn that decision on appeal. Although the District Judge refused the extradition she nevertheless denied Julian bail.
On Monday 31 August as the 8th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist atrocity was fast approaching, ABC's Four Corners broadcast a BBC documentary "Conspiracy 7/7 - The London Bombings" which purported to "assess the truth behind the conspiracy theories" behind the London Tube Bombings of 7 July 2005. In fact, it did nothing of the sort. It merely attempted to discredit the whole British 7/7 Truth movement by focusing on a few questionable individuals within it. By broadcasting this rubbish and refusing to broadcast other well-researched material which blows apart the Official 7/7 story, as well as the Official 9/11 story, the ABC has shown itself, far from being biased to the left, to be be little better than another arm of global corporate propaganda.
See also:The July 7 Truth Campaign. Urgent: Please attend protests to mark the eight anniversary of 9/11 and demand proper inquiries into 9/11, 7/7, Bali etc. In Brisbane, meet outside Central Station at 11AM, In Sydney meet outside the ABC Centre at Ultimo at 11AM (further information here).
What you can do: It is critical that the ABC's shameful collusion in the coverups over 7/7 and 9/11 and its general pro-corporate bias not go unchallenged.
Please make your objections known to both the ABC and 4 Corners and send us any copies of your complaints.
Attend protests to mark the eight anniversary of 9/11 and demand proper inquiries into 9/11, 7/7, Bali etc. In Brisbane, meet outside Central Station at 11AM. In Sydney meet outside the ABC Center at Ultimo at 11AM (further information here).
Disclaimer: I haven't seen the documentary for myself. The usual "Video On Demand" facility has not been made available, almost certainly for arcane copyright reasons, even though both the BBC and the ABC are publicly funded. I am basing this article on the views of others whose opinions I trust and the content of 4 Corners feedback pages in which viewers overwhelmingly condemned the BBC's sham documentary. - JS
Four Corners' promotion of the BBC 'documentary' presumed that its viewers would unquestioningly accept their out-of-hand rejection of views which questioned the UK Government's ludicrous account of the July 7 bombings. The overwhelming repudiation of this program on their viewers' feedbackpages proved them wrong. See also:The July 7 Truth Campaign.
ABC 4 Corners peddles UK Government 7/7 Big Lie, censors 9/11 widows
On Monday 31 August as the 8th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist atrocity was fast approaching, ABC's four corners broadcast a BBC documentary "Conspiracy 7/7 - The London Bombings" which purported to "assess the truth behind the conspiracy theories" behind the London Tube Bombings of 7 July 2005. In fact, it did nothing of the sort. It merely attempted to discredit the whole British 7/7 Truth movement by focusing on a few questionable individuals within it. By broadcasting this rubbish and refusing to broadcast other well-researched material which blows apart the Official 7/7 story, as well as the Official 9/11 story, the ABC has shown itself, far from being biased to the left, to be be little better than another arm of global corporate propaganda.
The program, like so much other sham reporting ostensibly criticising Western government 'blunders' over 9/11, Afghanistan, etc. in recent years, the documentary purported to be a fearless indictment the UK government, specifically it promised to tell of "how a government blunder opened the door for conspiracy theorists to claim the London bombings of 2005 were an inside job".
Its real effect was to shore up the UK Government lies over 7/7 used to further its war aims in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Official story of the London Tube Bombings is in contradiction with the physical evidence of the bombed trains and bus and eyewitness accounts, but the BBC and the UK media failed to demand proper explanations for those inconsistencies. Moreover, there has been no inquiry into 7/7, not even one like the rigged 9/11 Commission. The July 7 Truth Movement has consistently demanded a proper inquiry.
Having spoken to several people who viewed the program, it sounds as though that the program had the intended effect on a large number of viewers of convincing them that 7/7 Truthers, as well as 9/11 Truthers were fruit loops and that the Official accounts of 7/7 and 9/11 were right after all.
However, judging by the comments, even on 4 Corners' heavily censored and edited feedback pages, few properly informed viewers were fooled. Here are some
farcical (6 Sep): Another hysterical comedy, albeit for the innocent dead and maimed of course, from the bbc (and yes 'big brother corporation' is exactly right) - seconded by our so-called flagship current affairs program 4Cs...!! pathetic!!
Erik @ Sydney (4 Sep): Peter Powers told us on two seperate media outlets on the day that they
"were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning"
Wow, how fortuitous! And what a co-incidence!
This is the KEY to the false flag operation on that day.
There are two kinds of people in this world. Ones who are awake and ones who are asleep. When you wake up you can start to see the bullshit as it happens. It's not that we are paranoid, it's just that we are alert and immune to the lies.
The ones who sleep, they can't help but not notice anything. They love to eat up every government line and official story that's regurgitated by the Main Stream Media like Four Corners. They also like to proclaim how right they are because the believe the government, that makes them Holy.
Four Corners you should really be ashamed of yourself for posting this BBC hit piece. I am disgusted in you and so are many others.
iracund (regarding 9/11) (3 Sep): In the week before the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, why would the producer of Four Corners chose to present a B-grade tabloid program, whose very title implies that anyone who doubts any official conspiracy theory is as "loony" as the subject of that program?
As a "loony troofer", who is used to the deafening wall of silence emanating from the ABC and other MSM organs, I'm more than loony enough to present the following facts:
In New York on Sept 11 2001, three first world over-engineered skyscrapers completely collapsed suddenly, swiftly and symmetrically, through their own structure. There is and always has been only one possible explanation for that.
In a hundred+ years of steel frame high-rise construction, the only buildings to collapse in that manner, have all been the result of controlled demolitions.
Both Towers not only imploded through their paths of most resistance, they also exploded, expelling materials upward and outwards over a distance of 4 to 5 hundred feet. The material included virtually all the concrete, which was pulverised to the consistency of talcum powder: huge girders, which were expelled laterally with enough force to impale themselves in neighbouring buildings: and smithereens of human bone, which were found in rubble deposited on the roof of the Deutche Bank building, in April 06.
How is any of this possible from a gravity-only driven collapse?
When challenged by members of the US public on the "fall time" of WTC7, the National Institute of Standards in Technology (NIST) was forced to revise its belated report and admit that this building spent at least 2 seconds in free fall. For any building to achieve free fall, it has to have its supporting structures synchronously cut, through its entire cross section. This is only possible with the assistance of expertly placed explosives.
The recently discovered evidence that a heavily engineered form of military grade, "nano-ized"thermitic material was discovered in the dust from the 9/11 WTC catastrophe merely confirms what was already known: that all three skyscrapers were demolished. Not only is controlled demolition the Occam's Razor for those collapses, it is the only possible explanation.
To quote a fictional character to compliment the fiction of the official story: "Once you've eliminated the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable is the "troof".
NB (3 Sep): WHEN YOU INSULT 9/11 TRUTH YOU INSULT THE VICTIMS' FAMILIES. 9/11 TRUTH IS THE FAMILY MEMBERS! They are the ones pressing for a proper investigation. Their valid questions deserve answers.
Shame on you ABC. Millions of people worldwide have examined the extensive and conclusive EVIDENCE concerning the truth of 9/11. How much longer can you continue your pathetic and desperate cover up?
I laughed out loud at the comment by "grizzlysmit" about not having found 9/11 Truth on the internet. Try putting "9/11 Truth" into Google - over 93 million hits. Can you work Youtube? Start by watching World Trade Centre 7 (47 storeys) fall to the ground in 7 seconds (not hit by a plane) and the comments by Larry Silverstein (who took over the leases of the 3 WTC buildings 6 weeks before 9/11) where he discusses giving the order to "pull" the building. You don't even need to go any further than the ABC website. Go to their "Unleashed" section and search for Hereward Fenton's excellent article. Once you have caught up, check out the peer-reviewed study on the nanothermite (explosive) found in the dust at the Twin Towers.
The number of politicians, eyewitnesses, architects, engineers, physicists, scientists etc standing up for 9/11 Truth is truly staggering. Check out Scholars for 9/11 Truth. You want celebrities? Start with Channel 9's star, Charlie Sheen.
The ABC's role in this shameful cover up is criminal. Those at the very top at the ABC will be held accountable. As for the ABC "journalists" who know the truth, stand up together. You are not only going to have to answer to the general public, but your families and children as well.
9/11 Truth is not going away. It is growing every day as more and more people find out.
Harry Tuttle (2 Sep): Nobody that was charged with terrorism on 7/7 has ever been convicted in a court of law, despite £100m being spent on an investigation. [Read Guardian article.]
However the Big Brother Corporation (BBC) claims they are guilty - so they must be!
In the future could the ABC should show BBC "documentaries" in a fiction time slot (along with Doctor Who etc), so as to not tarnish the Four Corners reputation.
PABULUM (2 Sep): What is interesting in the BBC article is that Binny Netanyahu has recanted of his previous statement that he received a warning to stay in his hotel room prior to the actual bombing. Netanyahu originally stated that the warning came from Scotland Yard, Scotland Yard has denied warning Netanyahu. The next statement from whom, I don't know, was that the warning from Scotland Yard went first to the Israeli Embassy. There was no more about the warnings made public after that statement, that I am aware of.
So now Netanyahu is still stating that he received a warning from Scotland Yard, but only after the first bombs went off. Oh dear!!!!!!!!
Apparently Binny had forgotten, and the journalist had ignored the fact because it had been stated earlier on in this BBC article that the first bombs, that is the bombs that went off on the trains simultaneously were initially reported as being 'power surges'. They were never reported as bombs until after the bus was blown up outside Tavistock House in Russell Square.
What we now have is corroborating statements from Binny that he was personally involved with the London Bombing.
The one major piece of evidence that was totally ignored was the article written by Efraim Halevi that was printed in 'The Jerusalem Post on 7/7/05 in regard to the London Bombing. Halevi's article tells us who the perpetrators were, and that the same people were responsible for 911.
(PABULUM 02 Sep 09): ON 7/7 THE SPOOKS were conducting a similar operation/exercise strangely at the very same location on the very same day.???
Also on 9/11 SPOOKS conducted some 5 military exercises on the very same day of America being attacked.???
Strangely also the yankee military carried out exercise ops.in 1932 and 1938 of Hawaii being attacked by carrier borne aircraft.
History sure repeats itself.
Wake up-- they who lead us lead us astray.
(PABULUM 02 Sep 09): FOUR CORNERS at the top says, "Investigative TV journalism at it's best." ? ...
May I issue a challenge forthwith to all these intrepid men and women to reveal the absolute truth about this claim.
Prove to me categorically that WTC 7 NYC 9/11 WAS NOT IMPLODED.
Go to it folks your time starts from now.
911oz (02 Sep): Subject Welcome to the War on Reason!
This message is directed not at the ABC editors who I believe are beyond help, but at those thoughtful readers who have posted here or who may be browsing this page.
We are faced with an epic struggle of science and reason Vs dogma and mass hysteria. This kind of struggle is not new in human history. The fight must be won again, as it was won in past ages.
And we WILL win folks.
wezthebikie (2 Sep): As an Australian taxpayer, I am quite concerned that the ABC, has now attached itself to the bottom of the barrel, along with the Commercial Television Stations. I would hope that after that disgraceful farce, that 4 Corners has described as, 'Investigative Journalism', the Government will now concede, that we should no longer have to pay for the running of the ABC. Please feel free to reimburse my taxes, that have been spent, running the ABC. I am also convinced that, A Current Affair and Today-Tonight, will be happy to have company at the bottom of the barrel, where ABC 'Journalism', has now placed itself. P.S. How about a new 'Investigative Journalism' effort, into the Nano-Thermite, that has been found in the dust of the World Trade Centre Buildings. Let's see if you can make as big a disgrace of yourselves, as what your 7/7 'Investigative Journalism, did.
bbc hit piece (2 Sep): I've noticed almost everyone who has commented on the BBC 7/7 program has been appalled not only by the journalism but by the obvious debunking of the conspiracy theory that British intelligence and the British Gov were behind the tube station bombings. What better way to debunk the conspiracy theorists than to pick a couple of crazies out of several million sane and intelligent "truthers" and let them dig their own graves. Is it possible the demolition van was planted at Tavistock Square [address of British MK Ultra mind control think tank!] to later debunk those who were not thorough enough on their research? To suggest governments have not or do not carry out terror on their own populations is to show a complete lack of historical knowledge. Please read up on Operation Northwoods and make up your own mind. Also, anyone who believes the official 9/11 tale is an idiot.....plain and simple.
iracund (02 Sep): It's a sad day for Australian TV journalism when the ABC's flagship, Four Corners is forced to run the trash like the "Conspiracy Files", a term which is bandied about to divert public attention away from asking legitimate questions about 9/11, 7/7, Bali et al.
At least the BBC's Third Tower, gave a voice to Professor Steven Jones and Richard Gage, two of the leading lights of the 9/11 Truth Movement, for the first time on Oz TV. This one seems to have simply picked on one (possibly mentally ill) person in order to taint anyone with legitimate questions or feasible alternative theories to the official ones.
In the case of 9/11 for example, (the Crime of the Century) there has been no investigation by Four Corners on the actual events and evidence of that day. Or the many serious questions remain ignored, unanswered or inadequately answered by the official conspiracy theories.
Could it be that the once great Four Corners have programed this twaddle a week before the anniversary of 9/11 to reinforce the official view that all so called "conspiracy theorists" are all loonies? Especially this year, when the producer of that program knows that highly qualified scientist have a published, vigorously peer-reviewed, and unchallenged paper, which provides conclusive evidence that all three buildings in NY on that day were demolished by cutting edge, military grade explosives. (Cf: Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 WTC Catastrophe).
Dare I suggest that your failure to report on this and many other suspicious events on that day, puts you in breach of your charter.
9/11 Truther Kim Bax attempted to post comments but said they seemed censored or were heavily edited (see Appendix 1 below). This led to phone calls and exchanges (mostly one-way) of e-mails between her and 4 Corners staff. In her e-mails, she asked why after all these years, no-one on the ABC had interviewed the "Jersey Girls". The "Jersey Girls" are widows who lost their husbands on that day and forced the Bush administration to finally hold an Inquiry into 9/11, as rigged that it turned out to be. Details of Kim Bax's correspondence can be found at www.kimspages.org/abc4corners.htm
Even Phillip Adams, an ostensible left-winger and opponent of US Foreign Policy, who on one occasion praised the "Jersey Girls" refuses to interview them and maintains that all the 9/11 Truth Movement (presumably including the "Jersey Girls") are "nutters". For the correspondences between Kim Bax and Phillip Adams, please go to www.kimspages.org/phillipadams.htm.
Appendix 1: Edited comment by 7/7 and 9/11 Truther Kim Bax
I am at a loss to understand why my comments (posted below), were so heavily edited, and I have emailed 4 Corners privately, asking for a written explanation (they have my full contact details). The information that was cut were links, freely available to anyone on the net who cares to use a google search engine , to check the truth of the facts in my "Letter to the Editor."
Further, I am also at a loss to understand why there is no response from ABC 4 Corners (on this message board), to the two very legitimate questions I have posed in that post...
The core of the matter seems to be that the British Government has (to this day), strenuously resisted all calls for a public inquiry into 7/7, and that the 9/11 Commission was only formed after a 14-month fight by bereaved family members - further still, these same family members (who ABC 4 Corners seems to have consistently ignored), are grossly dissatisfied with the 9/11 Commission, and they have been calling for a new judicial review since 2004. What Planet does ABC 4 Corners live on for that not to be "News"?
Again, I very much hope this entirely legitimate post of mine is allowed on the ABC message board. I'll certainly be posting it on my own blog, and circulating the info.
wiccedwoman (02 Sep):
Subject An open question to 4 Corners
Yesterday, I circulated this 136-word "Letter to the Editor" to 100's of local papers all over Australia (I collated the email addresses ages ago, when I was involved in other community campaigns):
"As another anniversary of 9/11 comes round, the World should pay its respects to the widows and mothers of that day by a single voice demanding truth and justice. Without Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Lorie Van Auken, and Mindy Kleinberg, nicknamed "The Jersey Girls," The 9/11 Commission would not have existed. They fought Bush for 14 months, before he caved to an inquiry. Even so, it cost over three times less than the investigation into Clinton’s sex life and finances, over 70% of the women’s questions remain ignored, and to this day, they are still fighting for an independent judicial review. Bizarrely, even "Respected" Australian journalists like Phillip Adams refuse to interview them. For a deeper look at this issue, I strongly recommend "9/11 Press for Truth," which was screened by The History Channel in 2007."
. . . and as a result, my questions to 4 Corners are, (as we approach the 8th anniversary of 9/11), wouldn't it have been more appropriate to interview "The Jersey Girls" in depth about their continuing campaign for a new judicial review of 9/11, rather than screen this BBC piece (of doubtful quality in my opinion)? And secondly, has the ABC ever interviewed "The Jersey Girls" about their continuing campaign?
Further, here are the links I also sent out with that short letter to back up the points I make (and especially as regards the point I make about Phillip Adams, you are more than welcome to speak with him directly about the veracity of my correspondence with him). Lastly (before I publish those mentioned links), I'll also be posting this comment yourselves on numerous Australian email lists (and to my various other contacts), with a comment as to whether or not you allowed to be published on your board. I very much hope it is, and I very much hope I get some direct answers to these very reasonable questions.
Appedix 2: Comments in support of BBC 'documentary'
pixie 4 Sep): It's really great to hear what the conspiracy/no moon landings crowd think !
I hope 4Corners runs the same show next year.
Pythinia (3 Sep): Amazing what a little technology jargon will do for a conspirator theorist - what hate has been spilt on the pages by posters on the Four Corners airing of the 7th July 2005 bombing, plus dragging in other tragedies to up the anti.
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.
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.
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 "The Grim Picture of Obama's Middle East" also republished 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:
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:
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.
Why is the Australian far-left seemingly unanimous in its resolve (as Paul Craig Roberts pointed out #comment-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 self-plagiarised 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?
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 #comment-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 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 #comment-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.
#appendix2" id="appendix2">Appendix 2: Comments from forum in response to video "America is not a Democracy"
The publication of a particularly unoriginal and unremarkable 10 minute video "America is not a Democracy," featuring Noam Chomsky on information Clearing House, attracted, so far 56 comments, 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.
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.
#syria">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'.
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.
#corbett">Appendix 2: James Corbett on Noam Chomsky, Academic Gatekeeper
#main-fn1" id="main-fn1">1.#main-fn1-txt">↑ If you follow this link, 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 here.