RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Ron Paul: "So, this whole idea that the whole Muslim world is responsible for this and they're attacking us because we're free and prosperous, that is just not true. Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda have been explicit. They have been explicit, and they wrote and said that we attacked - we attacked America because you had bases on our holy land in Saudi Arabia, you do not give Palestinians a fair treatment, and you have been bombing Iraq."

Portrait, Noam Chomsky, 06/15/09. (photo: Sam Lahoz)
Portrait, Noam Chomsky, 06/15/09. (photo: Sam Lahoz)



Noam Chomsky: "Ron Paul Was Right
About 9/11 Motive"

By Democracy Now!

13 September 11

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01e8-zSLkg0

 

ARON MATÉ: Well, Noam, you mentioned the changes in discourse between 10 years ago and today. And actually, this issue of the reasons behind 9/11 came up last night at the Republican presidential debate. Congress Member Ron Paul of Texas drew boos from the crowd and a rebuke from other candidates on the podium when he criticized US foreign policy in discussing the roots of 9/11.

REP. RON PAUL: We're under great threat because we occupy so many countries. We're in 130 countries. We have 900 bases around the world. We're going broke. The purpose of al-Qaeda was to attack us, invite us over there, where they can target us. And they have been doing it. They have more attacks against us and the American interests per month than occurred in all the years before 9/11. But we're there, occupying their land. And if we think that we can do that and not have retaliation, we're kidding ourselves. We have to be honest with ourselves. What would we do if another country, say China, did to us what we do to all those countries over there?

So, this whole idea that the whole Muslim world is responsible for this and they're attacking us because we're free and prosperous, that is just not true. Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda have been explicit. They have been explicit, and they wrote and said that we attacked - we attacked America because you had bases on our holy land in Saudi Arabia, you do not give Palestinians a fair treatment, and you have been bombing - I didn't say that, I'm trying to get you to understand what the motive was behind the bombing. At the same time, we had been bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for 10 years. Would you be annoyed? If you're not annoyed, then there's some problem.

AARON MATÉ: That was Republican Congress Member Ron Paul of Texas speaking last night at the Republican presidential debate. Noam Chomsky, your response?

NOAM CHOMSKY: I think what he said is completely uncontroversial. You can read it in government documents. You can find it in polls. Maybe people don't like to hear it, but, as I mentioned before, it goes back to the 1950s. Actually, right after 9/11, the Wall Street Journal, to its credit, did a study of privileged Muslims, sometimes called "monied Muslims," people in the Muslim world who are deeply embedded in the US global project - lawyers, directors of multinational corporations and so on, not the general population. And it was very much like what Eisenhower had - was concerned about, and the National Security Council, in the 1950s. There was a lot of antagonism to - a lot of antagonism to US policy in the region, partly support of dictators blocking democracy and development, just as the National Security Council concluded in 1958.

Also, by then, by 2001, there were much more specific things: very much a lot of anger about the US backing for the way - Israeli occupation of the Occupied Territories, settlements, the bitter oppression of the Palestinians, and also, something that isn't discussed much here but meant a lot there - and remember, these are privileged Muslims, leaders of - those who kind of carry out, implement the general US economic and social policies in the region. The other thing, besides the Israeli - support of Israeli crimes, was the sanctions against Iraq. This was 2001, remember. The sanctions against Iraq were brutal and destructive. They killed hundreds of thousands of people. Both of the international diplomats who administered the Oil-for-Food program, distinguished international diplomats - Denis Halliday, Hans von Sponeck, in sequence - both of them resigned in protest because they regarded the sanctions as genocidal. They were carrying out a kind of a mass slaughter of Iraqis. They were strengthening Saddam Hussein. They were compelling the population to rely on him just for survival. And these were major crimes of the 1990s. And privileged Muslims, monied Muslims, in the Saudi Arabia, elsewhere, were bitterly opposed to this, not because they hate our freedoms, because they don't like murderous and brutal policies.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+202 # Capn Canard 2011-09-13 18:36
Chomsky speaks truth but there is such an enormously large number of willfully ignorant people in America that I can't see us getting past these troglydites. We are doomed to be ruled by the ignorami
 
 
+88 # RLF 2011-09-14 06:19
Ignorance is a condition of knowledge. These 'troglodytes' keep themselves ignorant for EMOTIONAL reasons...If progressives continue to trying to educate these folks...they will fail. They must create an emotional argument to succeed. You can't argue facts with a fanatic!
 
 
+64 # Billy Bob 2011-09-14 08:30
Absolutely! Emotions ALWAYS trump facts! This is the reason liberals lose over and over, even when our ideas have the support of the majority. Intelligent people are often unable to dumb-down their arguments to make them about puppies and the flag. Until we learn that skill, we lose.
 
 
+36 # LeeBlack 2011-09-14 10:00
The reason was published at the time. It was so much easier to go with the "They hate us for our freedom." cry than to consider the real reason.

How ironic that these people only listen to common sense when spoken by one of their own.
 
 
+15 # Peacedragon 2011-09-13 21:29
Yes. I lean to the left of the Democrats but now I might consider voting for Ron Paul.
 
 
+63 # kyzipster 2011-09-14 07:53
Ron Paul should be complimented for speaking the truth on a few issues but he's to the right of Bush on most issues.
 
 
+188 # BobbyLip 2011-09-13 21:50
Ron Paul is proof, if any was needed, that a person can be correct and courageous about one thing and at the same time be a total fruitcake about everything else. Chomsky, of course, is correct about everything, as usual.
 
 
+160 # PhilO 2011-09-13 22:01
Watch the clip and note the looks Ron Paul gets from the other candidates. They were acting as if they had never before heard what he was saying. Which leads to the question:
Which is worse, that they had never before heard that information, or that they had heard it but were 'playing stupid' to appeal to the Teabagger-base?
 
 
+59 # Capn Canard 2011-09-14 07:14
they are playing stupid, it is what stupid people want.
 
 
+34 # cadan 2011-09-14 10:45
Well, they are playing stupid, but it's not the first time.

There was some debate in a prior election, and Ron Paul made the same point, and Rudy Giulani replied something like "I've never heard that before". (He might have said "I've never heard that theory" or "I've never heard of blow back", but it was along those lines.)

So these guys are being palpably dishonest.

They have heard this line before.

But they can't even bring themselves to admit it.

And our pathetic news media won't hold them accountable.

They don't have to agree. They can say that Moslems and Arabs hate us because of our freedom, or our intact bridges, or whatever.

But they should at least agree that they have heard that our wanton destruction has made some people hate us so much they are willing to die just to attack us.

I just wish there was some way that the intentionally ignorant people could go off and form their own country and fight their own imperialist wars and the rest of us could put up some gigantic sign that says "Don't attack us, attack the war mongers over there."
 
 
+13 # jwb110 2011-09-14 11:44
Quoting cadan:
Well, they are playing stupid, but it's not the first time.

There was some debate in a prior election, and Ron Paul made the same point, and Rudy Giulani replied something like "I've never heard that before". (He might have said "I've never heard that theory" or "I've never heard of blow back", but it was along those lines.)

So these guys are being palpably dishonest.

They have heard this line before.

But they can't even bring themselves to admit it.

And our pathetic news media won't hold them accountable.

They don't have to agree. They can say that Moslems and Arabs hate us because of our freedom, or our intact bridges, or whatever.

But they should at least agree that they have heard that our wanton destruction has made some people hate us so much they are willing to die just to attack us.

I just wish there was some way that the intentionally ignorant people could go off and form their own country and fight their own imperialist wars and the rest of us could put up some gigantic sign that says "Don't attack us, attack the war mongers over there."

If you want the intentionally ignorant to form their own country let the South succeed, along with Texas.
 
 
+8 # Billy Bob 2011-09-14 14:11
I'd rather not "let" them succeed this time, but FORCE THEM to. LET'S ABORT THEM.

We could do it easily by just making a referendum:

"Do you believe we are responsible for the common good?"

If the state answers, "yes", they get the benefits of belonging to "the UNION". If not, they can defend their own bran new country and deal with the consequences of its "rugged individualism".

The U.S. would still have the 35 most productive states, and that ain't bad
 
 
+71 # Merschrod 2011-09-13 22:07
That is a concise summary of the reasons for 9/11 - blowback pure and simple.

Unfortunately it does not fit the narrative and mythology that was created to leverage the piublic behind the Neo-Con desire to take Iraq. The taking has not really happened yet b/c Iraqi nationalism will probably prevail.

I think that the only reason that US foreign policy has been against nationalism is the greed factor. Nationalists usually want a share for their people and development, but multi-nationals prefer to take more. Interesting that Saudi Arabia and the organization of ARAMCO has kept a much greater share than other coutries - there must be a story there.
 
 
+85 # Baka 2011-09-13 22:14
If the mainstream media reported international news without such a pro-American bias more Americans would understand this. If Ron Paul can figure it out, why can't the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and CNN?
 
 
+34 # Glen 2011-09-14 06:35
They have it figured out, Baka, but they are part of the system. The game being played by the news media is part of the very offensive tactics of the U.S. government. Merschrod mentioned the neo-con agenda which is still in play.

And all the yakking heads and newspapers know it.
 
 
-104 # soozricketts 2011-09-13 22:20
Having spent time in that part of the world I find both Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky's comments as naive as believing they attacked us for our freedoms.
 
 
+14 # Lloyd Wagner 2011-09-14 00:08
Anyone who believes that 19 hijackers used box-cutters to overwhelm hundreds of passengers on 4 planes is naive. Somehow I don't think a lot of people are as naive as they are pretending to be.
 
 
+9 # phrixus 2011-09-14 05:29
I'd be interested in hearing your alternate theory. Seriously.
 
 
+41 # BradFromSalem 2011-09-14 06:00
Why were we attacked?

Either they hate our way of life or they hate how we treat them.

The way of life crowd believes that America is so good and wonderful that even when we do something bad it is far better than what anyone else would do.

Te other group essentially believes that by acting as if we are the masters of the world, and benevolent masters at that, are deaf and blind to how our 'subjects' see us.

Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky are obviously in the latter group as am I. Our hubris has sowed the seeds of dissent against America's power. To paraphrase the words of the Rev. Wright, America's chickens have come home to roost.

Again, if there is a third way, share it. Please.
 
 
+10 # philpollack 2011-09-14 06:42
@soozricketts - care to elaborate?
 
 
+8 # Andrew730 2011-09-14 06:42
I have never been to that part of the world. I would like to hear your insights on why we were attacked.
 
 
+21 # reiverpacific 2011-09-14 09:24
Quoting soozricketts:
Having spent time in that part of the world I find both Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky's comments as naive as believing they attacked us for our freedoms.

I'm asking this respectfully just to get some first-hand information and really would like to know. What were you doing in "That part of the World"? When were you there (during or post-Saddam) and in what capacity? Did you get around a bit? What did you learn about the country and in what regions?
Y'see, I've lived, worked and traveled in many parts of the world and have never lost my sense of wonder at the patchwork we all make up globally.
But some of my fellow expats or travelers have remained as ignorant on leaving as they did on their day of arrival, socialized only with other expats, were there for the tax-free $ (or in a military role supporting the US or other Imperialist capitalist incursions) never went out into the different areas and many diverse cultures, traditions and history, listened to their music, literature, arts, crafts, or ate their foods.
One conservative who posts occasionally on RSN, cites experience in other places only to declaim from on high but never offers anything to illuminate us, nor ever makes a point other than disapproving remarks.
Please share on what you base y'r opinion, so that we may be enriched by your experiences.
 
 
+44 # William Bjornson 2011-09-13 23:05
Chom sort of skirts one little point that seems to be ignored by just about everyone and maybe some bright star here can clarify this. To my knowledge, the FBI has never wanted ObL for the 9/11 attack. This would also, I think, rule out al Queda. al Queda itself immediately denied ANY involvement in the 9/11 attack. al Queda also denied any involvement in the African embassy bombings which, if you examine various statements from .gov, seems to have been linked to a splinter group of al Queda barely connected to ObL's main org.

Also, if you bother to look at a map, you might notice the convenient placement of both Iraq and Afghanistan. We know the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of young Americans killed there died, and are dying, for a treasonous fraud. Applying sui bono to Afghanistan, we have good reason to believe that this is a fraud as well.

As far as airplanes being responsible, the large majority of architects and engineers who construct such structures as the WTC would like to have a word with you. Layers within layers within layers is how any good propagandist builds a Big Lie. Just sayin'... and asking...
 
 
+9 # CragJensen 2011-09-14 01:28
9/11 is full of mysteries and the government's official version of what happened doesn't add up. I have looked at it from every which way i.e. were rogue elements in government responsible? And if so - how did these rogue elements pull off something that would have involved so many people on so many levels? And why has no one stepped forward and said - look - I placed bombs in one of the WTC towers or I was ordered to stand down while the planes flew towards their target or whatever it is - why has not one person come forward?

Supposedly a CIA agent did admit to hoaxing the bin Laden confession video - but there is scant evidence of this.

As far as why Muslims would want to attack us - well - when a nation becomes a sprawling empire - that nation is bound to be attacked from time to time. This does not justify the horrid events/attack of 9/11 - it just is what it is. The ancient Roman Empire was always being challenged by the countries it occupied. Rome , itself, was attacked from time to time. It just goes with the territory (no-pun-intended).

Chomsky seems to believe the government's official version of 9/11 but where he gets the idea that Osama gave a reason for the attack is a mystery to me since Osama denied involvement. Perhaps Chomsky got this info from the obviously hoaxed bin Laden confession video.
 
 
+7 # William Bjornson 2011-09-14 18:51
CragJensen: It's very unlikely that the root of 9/11 lies within Islam for a number of reasons, even if the immediate perps were Islamic. They really had nothing to gain compared to those who had much to gain.

I began an explan but there is no room here. Suffice it to say that setting up a red flag terrorist cell would be easy because everyone expects to not know the people above them or even next to them.

A while back, a really excellent psychologist named Eric Byrne wrote a book (Games People Play) describing strategies that individuals use in various contexts. One of these was "Let's you and him fight" where the 'operator' arranges for two others with whom he is in competition to become antagonistic toward each other weakening their own positions and aiding his. I'm sure it will be easy to fill in the details on such a strategy would work.

There is also the legal concept of sui bono, who benefits. Iraq and Afghanistan essentially surround Iran. Subduing either would allow a secure staging base to be built for an extended campaign against Iran. America has absolutely nothing to gain from this. Someone else does, the Khazari zionists. They have a lot to gain if we spend our young blood and treasure subduing THEIR competition. As far as their love for us, please look up the U.S.S. Liberty. They have total confidence that they OWN us.
 
 
+11 # BradFromSalem 2011-09-14 06:21
Even if the 9/11 attack was not carried out by al Queda, there are in fact terrorists that want to attach America.

This would not be the first time a straw enemy attack was used to draw Americans into supporting a war against a foe that we could defeat without warfare. But that is a totally different discussion!
 
 
+15 # Glen 2011-09-14 06:29
Yes, William, there are layers upon layers, but there are hundreds of people digging through those layers to find out the truth, especially about the events concerning the trade center and the Pentagon, and everything related.

Control of territory and resources is the biggest reason the U.S. government made preparations for attack and then attacked the Middle East - once again. And continues those attacks.

The heinous actions of the U.S. government is reason enough to research the layers, including listening to "architects and engineers who construct such structures as the WTC". They KNOW nobody builds something that tall without construction to withstand a hit by an airplane.
 
 
+9 # Billy Bob 2011-09-14 08:34
I've been saying the same thing. The map of the world is the most damning evidence of the real reason for the multiple colonial wars. Freedom is the freedom to say 2 + 2 = 4.
 
 
+25 # eric_frodsham 2011-09-13 23:19
Got to love Ron Paul. I'm sure he knew that everyone was not going to like what he said but he spoke truth anyway. Have not seen any other candidate with this kind of strength. He was also able to address the fact that we occupy too many countries and spend far too much on military while at the same time our government and people are going broke.
 
 
+15 # kyzipster 2011-09-14 07:59
There are plenty of progressives with this perspective and strength, they are generally shut out of debate and dismissed as liberal, terrorist loving loonies. Ron Paul has a bigger impact because he's not afraid to speak a bit of truth to his own party, like Nader back in 2000.
 
 
+11 # eric_frodsham 2011-09-14 10:10
Nader is a really good man too for sure! Really like Kucinich too, wish he would run.
 
 
+11 # futhark 2011-09-14 12:22
I personally like Dr. Paul's unpretentious style. To invoke another Republican and fellow Pennsylvania native, Dr. Paul projects a sort of Jimmy Stewart-like frankness and directness of expression. He doesn't make polished speeches read off the teleprompter. If you have seen him on C-Span, you may have noticed he talks to his fellow congressmen directly and to the point, without any sloganeering or rhetorical flourishes. I think that is at least half his appeal.

The other half is that other Republicans and the corporate-contr olled media consider him immensely annoying and try to pretend he doesn't exist or doesn't really represent any defensible point of view. People that are tired of media manipulation and being directed toward slick or glamorous celebrity candidates find this very refreshing, myself included. To aging boomers he also represents the possibility of staying physically fit and active in the community as the years go by.
 
 
+17 # brimarou 2011-09-14 03:16
Poking a hole in my balloon of rightful admiration of our dear Professor Chomsky, Bjornson raises important points. My sense is that the truthtelling here is not mutually exclusive. There is bound to be tremendous resentment of US occupations, and an agenda of destabilizing US as an occupying force ... as a world-class social-cultural -political-econ omic bully. AND the motive for 9/11 may well be that the military-securi ty-industrial complex simply wanted a "shock and awe" entree to 1st obliterating our freedoms and raiding our public treasury, turning our government into an ATM (badly overdrawn) for wealthy elites, and 2nd taking over public resources in Iraq and Afghanistan. BTW Fela! is a must-see as a political and cultural critique of the first order. Just sayin' ... and keeping an open mind.
 
 
+6 # maveet 2011-09-14 15:53
Your suggestion is in line with the recent revelation that the Obama administration didn't go forward with investigations or prosecutions of the bushies for fear of a potential coup. Voila, a nearly bloodless, barely noticed, take-over.
 
 
0 # AVehar544 2011-09-14 05:15
Can some of you more knowledgeable on the subject comment on whether at least one of the reasons/goals for the 9/11 attacks was to try and drive a wedge between the United States, which I believe has helped to keep the royal family in power since FDR days, and Saudi Arabia, so that OBL could take over his homeland?
 
 
+12 # Scott479 2011-09-14 05:15
Is there one dem in DC who'll go on the record as agreeing with Paul?
 
 
+9 # Billy Bob 2011-09-14 08:36
There are several. Unfortunately, none of them care enough to run for president. If any one of them primaried Obama, he'd probably be out of a job.
 
 
+22 # lcarrier 2011-09-14 05:49
Neither Chomsky nor Paul mention that the 9/11 hi-jackers were Saudis, Egyptians, and Yemenis--no Iraqis. Osama bin Laden, a Saudi businesman, was disowned by his family for objecting to Saudi support for U.S. military bases in the Middle East. Egypt under Mubarak was a U.S. satrapy, and Yemen was home to the U.S.Navy. No wonder they wanted to give us a black eye! Did I mention our support for Israel over the Arabs?

During WWII the British people complained about the U.S. military being stationed in the UK. They said our troops were "oversexed, overfed, and over here." And these were our staunch allies!
 
 
+23 # RLF 2011-09-14 06:13
What ever his politics, it is refreshing to see a politician, any politician, tell the truth...for once.
 
 
+15 # futhark 2011-09-14 06:19
I'm glad that a recognized leader of the "left" can acknowledge the insight and wisdom of someone usually consigned to the "right". I would very much like the "political spectrum" to be redefined in perhaps two dimensions rather than the lame linear model with which our concepts have been constrained since at least the French Revolution. It only makes social progress more difficult when we are stuck with essentially meaningless labels. The point is that we need to recognize that the bellicose, self-righteous jingoism Americans keep broadcasting works contrary to our own long-term interests.

The Tea Party itself originated as a group of self-identified conservatives who believed they had been betrayed by the Cheney/Bush neo-cons. They opposed the incursions into Constitutional liberties in the name of security and the exploding federal debt to support undeclared warfare in the Middle East. Somehow this position was transmogrified when Sarah Palin was invited to address the Tea Party convention a couple of years ago. I was appalled. It was as if the pope had been invited to address a convention of the American Atheists. The media immediately picked it up and somehow began identifying the Tea Party with the neo-cons. That's when Rush Limbaugh stopped calling Tea Partiers "traitors".
 
 
+9 # BradFromSalem 2011-09-14 08:25
futhark,

I get your point, and it has some validity; but....

As you said we are not really in a right/left world anymore. We are trying to establish the direction of all mankind. That is a concept that is too broad to fit into a 5 second sound bite where context is not defined by content. It is defined by whatever reality the presenter wishes to give the sound bite.

However the labels do serve a purpose. We can gather around them and hash out the small differences around the meaning of the label. The problem comes as you hint at when a person or idea associated with an opposing label is immediately rejected.

I would submit that acceptance of a right wing idea by a lefty is way more likely than the opposite.

The world is currently going through a massive change, perhaps on the scale of the change from hunter/gatherer to agricultural. It is at least on the scale of the industrial revolution. And it is about time we as an agricultural, industrial planet decide what is our organizing framework. After that, the labels will remain, but the rancor will not be as fierce.

(Damn, I cannot believe I am that optimistic!)
 
 
+6 # Capn Canard 2011-09-15 12:31
Absolutely, the technique of defining political parties is way overdue for an update. I agree with much of those who lean Left. However, I also agree with some Libertarian ideas and I sometimes find myself pining to belong with the Anarchists! There are also ideas on the Right I also find appropriate but in all honesty, the Social Democrat ideals are not that far afield from my beliefs. As it now stands I am opposed to the CORPORATE FASCIST CONTROL left over from W. that we still live under. Manipulation, spin, Media access, control of information, control of voting, controlling vote tabulation, limiting civil rights, prosecuting the poor, foreclosure on the elderly, capital punishment without review, etc etc etc. They will eat their own to remain in control.
 
 
+2 # Syacht 2011-09-17 06:33
This Neo-Fascist Corporate control you refer to is not a 'left over'! This is just the beginning ~~ and the rest of us? We are the unwitting slaves; each one of us an annuity to the corporate-ocrac y. Everything we do, everything we need, everything we buy, feeds the beast!
Soon education will only be for the super-rich the rest of us will be annuities or cannon fodder, take your pick.
 
 
+10 # MidwestTom 2011-09-14 06:36
I would like to see a Citizens investigation into the 9/11 events. Hopefully we could get answers to all of the rumored gaps in the official story. Was one of flight 93's engines actually found more than one mile from the plane body? Who was in the truck loaded with explosives stopped before entering the Lincoln tunnel? Was there really a film crew in New Jersey? I think that Ron Paul would be the kind of President who would bring honesty to government.
 
 
+10 # Michael Gordon 2011-09-14 07:17
Ron Paul is sort of refreshing considering no other candidates have the chutzpah to address 9/11 like that.. But how about the TRUTH!!! How about a real investigation into 9/11 to find out who our TRUE enemy is.. Imagine the unification that would take place if the truth were exposed and all the sheep woke up!?! Sounds like euphoria to me.. The fact that the general public still thinks 2 planes brought down the towers and the other buildings just leaves me with a hopeless feeling.. BUT there is Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth and other groups like that give me hope..

One question for the people here older than i am. How long did it take for people to start questioning the "Magic Bullet" theory after Kennedy was murdered? To me the governments 9/11 report was even more preposterous than the magic bullet theory..
 
 
+15 # Billy Bob 2011-09-14 08:40
The magic bullet theory was questioned immediately. Kennedy's murder has always appeared suspicious to more than 1/2 of all Americans. No one in any position to address these concerns seriously ever has or ever will (i.e. john stossel doesn't count). Sep. 11 will probably always be the same. Ask them if they care what you think.
 
 
+3 # Anarchist 23 2011-09-16 22:14
Quoting Billy Bob:
The magic bullet theory was questioned immediately.

Another piece of magical attribution of events in this country! Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, I didn't catch on to that until I heard Mark Lane in '73! OTOH, I read an article by some German on the volume of dust cloud-size of dust too and the energy it would take to produce such a thing-not present in the kerosene or even the kinetic energy of the buildings and I was convinced of the falsity of the Official History by 2003-getting a bit quicker in my old age!
 
 
+20 # frank 2011-09-14 07:22
Ron Paul is somewhat right. I can understand Bin Laden anger with the US occupation of Saudi Arabia. I was on business in Riyadh Saudi Arabia about 18 years ago. All five branches of the US military were in Riyadh in large numbers as advisors to the five Saudi military groups.

Our military were all over town dressed in full uniform. It really did look like an occupation of Saudi Arabia. To make things worse, most had their families there who were also all too visible. The American women, especially teenage girls, seemed to go out of their way not to wear the burka or cover their hair and face. (Yes, a bad religious rule, BUT, it is THEIR rule.) I wish I made a big deal of it to my Senators, etc. at the time.

Today, is American Military presence in the many countries we “advise” also too in their faces? Is it angering their citizens and working against our interests? What if 10,000 uniformed Chinese military were walking around Washington DC and other US cities as advisors? Would any American be angered?
 
 
+1 # Califa 2011-09-17 00:36
You brought up a very good point on why there is anger against Americans that can be articulated in a single word: disrespect. Not adhering to their societal norms is American arrogrance and blatant disrespect for other cultures.
 
 
+22 # USA2012??? 2011-09-14 08:40
If we understood the true impact we've had on the world to support our way of living at the expense of others it would be a no-brainer as to why people regard the USA the way they do.

To put it bluntly our lifestyle costs others severely, but our media does not point out just how we negatively impact the world for our benefit.

However, the media is quick to sensationalize with great bias the ill will many have towards the US without explaining why. To put it blatantly we would not tolerate the things we do to others, and we have been successfully "conditioned" not to ask why?

We have been so successfully indoctrinated in the "it's all about me" perspective that we are grossly guilty of not really caring how we get ours: as long as we get ours!
 
 
+10 # damosebo 2011-09-14 10:19
Problem reaction solution. It's as old as divide and conquer. Take the native americans. Problem: they got the land. Reaction: get public to fear the heeatheens and demand a solution from the governmen, a solution already planned. Use dividee and conquer to get tribes fighting with each other and propogandize the public witth idealistic jingoisms like manifest destiny, and whalla! The corporation of the united states stretches from sea to shiny sea.

Same methodology was used for 9/11. The towers come down, public demands a response and now we got war on terrorism and the orwelian one world government is that much closer to manifesting. Enjoy the ride!
 
 
0 # KittatinyHawk 2011-09-14 14:25
I really believe you all do not see R Paul for what he is a great actor. He knew with the Anniversary coming up, much of how people feel, he would sensationalize his rhetoric on the Attack.
If he truly was comtted to the atrocity of what happened than why not bring a better situation into the open of Bush, Cheney etc being War Criminals? Or Perhaps asking his peer group what they would do if they found out that We did the attacks to our own?
When push comes to shove, Mr Paul like the others running are all content in swallowing the guilt of too many conspiracies in this Country, doing nothing about it.
Another Interview to give GOP/TP free advertising and proves nothing except they know how to manipulate the Public.

Listen to Parsley, Sage, Rosemary, thyme album esp Silent Night. I listen to these on occassion as I love the Music, words...but this could have been reworded by Simon & Garfunkel for the 9/11 Anniversary and the kids today would have listened perhaps like we did.
Lost opportunity
 
 
+12 # Group_Capt_Lionel_Mandrake 2011-09-14 15:15
Monday night, the Broncos game should have begun before it was dark; instead there was a boo-hoo 911 poor us Nuremberg rally with 80,000 people in the corporation-nam ed stadium for an hour. Men and women shouting U.S.A.! U.S.A.! with jets flying overhead (and over a city of 2.5 million people). All these morons believe in this 911 bullshit and in making war, breaking the U.S., no healthcare, no jobs, no Social Security. It made me sick to watch this demonstation of patriotic gore. It made me sick to see 80,000 screaming jingoists with no facts to back them up.
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2011-09-14 19:07
I LOVE YOUR NAME. I read about all the people who know. Did you know who stole our precious body fluids?
 
 
+7 # QuestionsQuestions 2011-09-14 15:45
While Dr. Chomsky is right-on in how some Muslims see the US, he provides less insight into how the neo-cons must see us and the rest of the world. All you need do is peruse the docs of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC - google it) to understand their fervent desire, prior to 9/11, for a "new Pearl Harbor" to convince the US public of the need to invade other countries and take over their resources.

Do you really think they'd shrink from killing Americans (other than our soldiers, that is) in addition to hundreds of thousands of foreigners? I mean, Cheney just admitted to having ordered the shoot-down of flight 93 (too late, he claims - though he's been known to be chronologically challenged...).

As others above have suggested, there's plenty of evidence of deliberate manipulation of the facts of what went down on 9/11, chief among them the criminal destruction and feigned ignorance of evidence of controlled demolition at WTC - just look up what happened at WTC#7 to get the picture.

And you can't pin that on Bin Laden - heck, they couldn't even pin the "official" story of 9/11 on him, as the FBI now admits. It's a shame too that Noam seems to have been taken in by that clearly fake video. If they do anything right, they can create fake news. Question is, how long are we going to play the suckers...
 
 
+5 # Syacht 2011-09-17 06:22
No one ever mentions PNAC!!! Good for you! How could anyone read those PNAC papers and fail to see the plan was followed?

And didn't we later learn that the members of the Carlyle Group met on the morning of 9/11/01 and watched the spectacle from their hotel balcony?
 
 
+4 # tcatt57 2011-09-14 16:37
The more things change the more they stay the same.

-OR-

History repeats itself.

In this interview segment former Hitler Youth, Hilmar Von Campe,
describes what life was like under Hitler and the National
Socialists (Nazi's). Eerily similar to modern day America.

Video:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/4997.html

- Brasscheck

P.S. Please share Brasscheck TV e-mails and
videos with friends and colleagues.

That's how we grow. Thanks.
 
 
+8 # Krulick 2011-09-14 19:03
Both Paul and Chomsky seem wedded to the OCT (official conspiracy theory), the only difference from the orthodox narrative being a more nuanced and plausible motive than the silly "hate us for our freedoms" spiel, but which still reinforces the underlying fraud and lie.

Whether they are beating this invisible horse out of ignorance, cowardice, or collusion is the only remaining question I have of them.
 
 
+3 # William Bjornson 2011-09-14 23:22
Hear! Hear! Yes, exactly.
 
 
+2 # Ma Tsu 2011-09-15 10:52
To shed light on this subject, let us turn to Osama bin Laden's "letter to the American people," written a year after the attacks on our soil. In it he details seven reasons for his opposition to America and the American way.
First, he called us to embrace the foundational elements of his faith; sincerity, righteousness, mercy, honor, purity, and piety.
That couldn't hurt.
The second thing requested of us is to stop the oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that have spread among us.
He's got a point there. Check Wall Street and Reality television.
Thirdly, we are urged to take an honest stance with ourselves and admit that we are functionally a nation without principles or manners.
Ditto.
Fourth, we are called to stop supporting Israel to the exclusion of the Palestinians, the Russians against the Chechens, the Indians against the Kashmiris, the Chinese against the Tibetans and Uighurs and so forth. Seems only fair.
Fifth, U.S, troops have no business in the holy land of Arabia.
Well, we certainly not getting value for dollar spent by keeping them there.
Sixth, we should end our support for corrupt leaders in Moslem countries.
And wherever else they are to be found.
Seventh, we are called to deal with Islam on the basis of mutual interests and benefits.
No argument on that score..
 
 
+1 # Krulick 2011-09-15 14:13
A year after the 9/11 event, ObL had already been dead for nine months. So the supposed "letter" had to be written by someone else. Your guess is as good as mine, but it is likely from the same gang that put out phony audio and video tapes for years after the last known authentic tape, the one showing a gaunt, paralyzed, dying bin Laden in early December 2001.
 
 
-1 # VTP 2011-09-16 15:06
It's amazing to me how many posters here seem to take al Qaeda propaganda at face value. Is it really credible that withdrawing American forces from Saudi Arabia would have prevented al Qaeda from targeting America interests abroad and at home? (Bin Laden said No when the CIA asked him in the mid-90s whether he'd call off his war against the US if US forces withdrew--see Lawrence Wright's The Looming Towers.) For that matter, would the mass murder of American civilians really be an appropriate response to the fact that American troops are based in a "holy country" at the request of that country's rulers?
 
 
+3 # Anarchist 23 2011-09-16 22:07
There was a tenured professor at UNM who was fired for saying that exact thing-but 2 days after the 911 event. As much as I like Dr Chomsky and appreciate the humanitarian position, which is of course correct, I regret that the good Dr. still knows nothing of the physics of 911. I suppose all those PA steel workers were wasting much time and energy those many decades working in gigantic blast furnaces to make steel-as do the Chinese today, who used same method to melt down all the remaining 911 steel. Continuing to believe that jet-grade kerosene and 56 minutes of black smoke-emitting, cool burning oxygen-starved fire of desks and carpets could bring down 100,000 tons of steel and explosively pulverize God knows how much concrete, the entire building at free-fall speed-that is MAD! Yes we should change our foreign policy-that has been clear for 30 years, but nothing will happen until the Official History is thoroughly repudiated! Unless you want to believe that OBL and the daughter of Fu Manchu cooked up some really powerful magic hanging out in those caves. In which case, Dumbledore's Army-still recruiting. Choose your reality.
 
 
+1 # scratchmo 2014-03-28 08:28
The notion that al-Qaeda attacked us, the basis of the original conspiracy theory, is completely unsupported by facts. Unfortunately, a significant percentage of the Americans, instead of following the science and letting it lead them to a more rational explanation, have willingly allowed themselves to be fed this drivel. Until there is a true independent investigation, we can only speculate as to who the real scoundrels behind 9/11 are.
 
 
0 # futhark 2014-03-28 16:40
Here's what I think is a pretty good list of prime suspects responsible for the 9/11 attacks:

http://whodidit.org/

http://whodidit.org/cocon.html
 
 
0 # futhark 2014-03-28 16:44
It is also interesting to note that Ron Paul's "blow back" explanation for Arabs attacking America in retaliation for American attacks on their nations, while a flawed explanation, is also the "official" CIA explanation of what motivated the Islamic terrorists! So, Ron Paul took considerable heat from fellow Republicans for telling them the same disinformation that the CIA was broadcasting!
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN