Noam Chomsky: Manufacturing Dissent - CorbettReport com (xvid)

Maybe important to americans because a lot of them have a 911 trauma.
The rest of the world has other problems, real problems and a lot of those problems are caused by the same americans and their EU lackeys.

Well said, Foisky.

In Iraq there were times where they killed off people at 9/11 rates every WEEK -- you didn't see the "Truthers" make that much of a fuss about that.

At home a comparable number of poor people die every week because the capitalist is in charge of the health system.

All is different when well-situated english-speaking white people do the dying. Then you get some eyeball-focus.

i may download.. but for the most part, 'yawn'
..
what is overlooked about chomsky's analysis.. a big part of what he is saying; 'if you believed to begin with that these organizations and intellectual constructions had your best interest in mind,.. or ANY interest of the average person, THERE is where you were previously diluted.. nothing has changed about the world, your illusions have changed..'

yeech,.. anyhow.. seems dreadfully white and myopic,.

(don't mistake me,.. there certainly are issues i wish chomsky could be turned toward,.. but they certainly aren't this sort of ..hmmm.)

this is rubbish. don't waste your time.

When the subject is well-to-do white Americans, these people are eager to stand up for them.

I bet the feeling of security to stand up for those guys in addition to the elaborate ignorance must be a pleasant one.

If people have 20 minutes to dispose of, then watch this. It's a nice example of vacuous intellectual reasoning masquerading as some sort of bearer of "truth".

It starts of by calling Chomsky a "controlled left gatekeeper". If someone is controlled, then obviously there is some agency doing the controlling. But this video doesn't tell us who/what that is, nor does it even attempt to tell us. A crystal clear example of an ad hominem jab, which sets the tone for the remainder of the video.

Barry Zwicker attempts to use logic to discredit Chomsky. I listened to an interview with Mr. Zwicker a couple of years ago. Without quoting from it exactly, he basically said that he, and any person with half a brain, could tell from watching the videos on the day of 9/11 that it was a controlled demolition. No need to even look for evidence, it was "totally obvious", and to not see it means you're a moron. That's his perspective. If you don't agree with him, you're guilty of a "bizarre non sequitur." When Chomsky says that someone can claim a conspiracy theory about any car crash, the video responds with the question: "That someone can imagine a conspiracy theory about a car crash, therefore concerned citizens should not ask questions about 9/11?" Of course that's not what Chomsky is suggesting. Of course someone should ask questions about a car crash conspiracy, or a 9/11 conspiracy, if there is any reason to suspect such a thing. He sees no reason to even suspect such a thing, and thinks it's a waste of time to pursue it. Chomsky simply has a different opinion about the matter, and therefore he's "controlled" and some sort of "gatekeeper", whatever that means.

The second part of this video starts to claim all sorts of "facts." We're shown lots of pictures of various webpages and such, something along the lines of "Loose Change" fact reporting. They quote some guy who testified before the "9/11 citizens commission"... I had never heard of such a thing, so I looked up their webpage. It looks like it was designed by a 7th grader, and is obviously a construction of followers of the so-called truth movement. They sell a PDF copy of their report for $2.50. Credibility: very low.

Near the end, we're given possibly the most outrageous claim - that Chomsky is "attempting to limit the acceptable discourse for political dissenters." How? By answering questions about the matter with his own opinion? It's not as if Chomsky ever even brings this subject up - it's quite the opposite, he never brings it up, only answers questions about it, reluctantly so, when he is asked. And he always insists, "judge for yourself."

If the purpose is to put Bush or Cheney behind bars, then shouldn't people look at he invasion of Iraq, which is a war of aggression and a war crime. The facts are not controversial. It seems that 911 truthers are trying to get Al Capone on income tax evasion, which is good if you have no other proof. But they don't see the bigger crime, which is probably easier to prosecute and has more support world wide.
To look at it from a pessimistic point of view, If you can't get Bust et al, on a clear cut crime like aggression, then how in hell are the truthers gonna link 911 to Bush or whoever did it? If 911 truthers want justice, i agree they should pursue 911 questions further, as long as they try to impeach or get the administration on war crimes also, if not then in many people's eyes they are mot serious about justice.

I won't waste my time watching this. While there may be some legitimate questions to be asked without delving into conspiracy theories about what happened that day it doesn't change anything. What are the truthers going to do? take Bush to court?(wait---- most of the judges are their cronies anyway), arrest his admin?, have a hearing/investigation about when to schedule the next hearing/investigation that will drag on for years and years until nobody gives a shit and probably covered minutely by CSPAN.

Chomsky once asked to these type of truthers "whats your alternative??". They never answered but one can see their alternative.

Look at who most of the truthers supported the last year: Ron Paul, a right-wing-free-market-libertarian. These same people care nothing of the labor movement or of poor inner city people in the U.S.

What many behind the scenes of the "truth movement" were trying to do was sneak a candidate like Ron Paul behind the left's back. Ron Paul was anti-war, and since he was debating against the neo-cons, he looked attractive when put next to them. The right-wing-free-market libertarians saw the anti-Bush/anti-war feelings as an opportunity to sneak Paul in. It didn't work.

Now they're attacking Chomsky because Chomsky does not only expose the neo-cons, neo-liberals, etc.....he also can and HAS exposed the "free-market" dogmatic folks for what they are and he even exposed the "angry white man" syndrome that got some people attracted to right figures like Pat Buchanan, Alex Jones, and Ron Paul.

So the next time the truthers come at you....ask em....what's their alternative as a movement?

I don't agree with Chomsky's opinion on 9/11. Does that mean I think he's a gatekeeper or does that nullify his other arguements? Of course not. If you know anything about Chomsky you'd know that he's all about physical evidence. First of all, he doesn't do "conspiracy theories" or circumstantial evidence. And he doesn't know anything about construction or demolition. I don't think, in my mind, there's much doubt that 9/11 was an inside job but I mean, it's basically saying it smells like a fish and looks like a fish pretty much and sorta acts like one so I guess it's a fish. I mean ya, it most likely is it's just... that's not conclusive evidence. At least that's my take on the Chomsky 9/11 thing, I could be wrong. Anyways, Chomsky's right when he says we should continue to concentrate on the lack of democracy and increase in corporate dominance of our world. The 9/11 death toll is relatively small compared to other disasters and terrorist actions that the U.S. itself creates or supports.

Don't get me wrong here it was a tragedy. But how could something like this happen in the most powerful country in the world with the CIA and everything it's just silly. Because if the US didn't know about it and could't stop it from happening..My friends..the bush administration has made of the US a one big joke.