Noam Chomsky Thanked In Daniele Ganser's Nato's Secret Armies (operation Gladio Book) Options

[evanlong]

This thread is related to an earlier post about the left and 9/11 found here: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21584

I was recently reading Daniele Ganser's book, NATO's Secret Armies, which details the CIA- and NATO-created post-WWII "stay behind" networks which were implemented in the postwar era in western Europe as part of a "strategy of tension" to prevent the far left from assuming power through democratic processes. (Originally, it was intended, or so it's been said, to have been used only in the case of an actual Soviet invasion, to bolster resistance lines, etc.)

Here's a quote from the introduction:

"Furthermore, my gratitude goes to Washington-based CIA author William Blum, who first drew my attention to Gladio and taught me a lot on covert action and secret warfare. Very warm thanks also go to Professor Noam Chomsky in Boston who not only encouraged my research, but also provided me with valuable contacts during our meetings in the United States and in Switzerland."

Chomsky endorsed the book thusly:

"Put briefly, the “stay-behind” armies of Western Europe – originally organized to fight in the event of World War III – morphed into substantial clandestine political forces with deep roots in European police and intelligence agencies. According to parliamentary investigations, the stay-behind veterans of Gladio appear to have made and broke governments. Elsewhere, they provided channels for intelligence operations and other relationships largely unknown to the elected leaders of a half dozen democratic states. This is important stuff."

Does anyone else have a problem with the disconnect here? It's OK to endorse exposes of covert intrigues abroad, but the suggestion that 9/11 or any number of "lone nut" killings in the U. S. could be CIA-related is "tin foil hat" territory?

[onesliceshort]

Does anyone else have a problem with the disconnect here? It's OK to endorse exposes of covert intrigues abroad, but the suggestion that 9/11 or any number of "lone nut" killings in the U. S. could be CIA-related is "tin foil hat" territory?

The guy is a state pawn. Always has been. Anything non 9/11 related, he is very logical. Mention 9/11 or JFK he's off like a headless chicken.

http://youtu.be/LoDqDvbgeXM

"it would have leaked"

"funny coincidences"

"technical experiments under controlled conditions" (NIST)

"the belief..that it could have been done has such low credibility"

"even if it were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares?"

On JFK..

"it's like the huge energy put out to find out who killed John F Kennedy. who knows and who cares? Plenty of people get killed all the time. What's the matter? Because it's John F Kennedy? The evidence against a massive conspiracy is just overwhelming..if it was a jealous husband in the Mafia, what difference does it make..it's taking energy away from serious issues"

What a piece of work. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/thumbdown.gif)

Here's his real opinion on 9/11

http://youtu.be/J6pGqYRi-PU

[evanlong]

The "who cares" thing on 9/11 always gets me, as if someone in his position could not appreciate the obvious and overwhelming difference it would make if the attacks were not genuine.

For the sake of disclosure, I've never been a Chomsky fan, nor have I had anything against him. He just hasn't been a big part of my world. That is, his views were not in any way formative in my experience, and I didn't come into any kind of serious contact with his work until fairly late in my studies. My questioning, then, my genuine disbelief at his stance is pretty objective; I really just don't get it. Gladio goes pretty deep, so what's the difference?

[Tamborine man]

Who cares about chomsky???

He'll be forgotten quicker than, for example, dan quayle -

and what sane person even remember him!!! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[evanlong]

With all due respect, millions give his words a lot of weight, and the Dan Quayle comparison is just not apt. He's been an extremely influential thinker.

My question is not rhetorical. If he's a controlled asset, what's the strategy behind his moves? I really don't see it. He's even admitted that there's been no real evidence presented to support the official theory of blame.

[onesliceshort]

With all due respect, millions give his words a lot of weight, and the Dan Quayle comparison is just not apt. He's been an extremely influential thinker.

My question is not rhetorical. If he's a controlled asset, what's the strategy behind his moves? I really don't see it. He's even admitted that there's been no real evidence presented to support the official theory of blame.

He's a gatekeeper of the left Evan. He's going to voice strong opinions and very eloquently put, logical arguments where corporations and US foreign policy is concerned. Yet he blurt outs "Who cares?" and uses the weakest, appeal to authority arguments, on two of the major incidents of the last 50 years.
That those who question those incidents are "conspiracy theorists" in a derogatory fashion.

We now have an openly controlled "truth movement" (even among the best intentioned). Chomsky is the "bridge-gap" between where the spectrum of people who believe that 9/11 was an inside job and those who are skirting around the idea meet.

His book is a prime example of how this traitor works:

http://prernalal.com/scholar/Noam%20Chomsky%20-%209-11.pdf

Thing is Evan, I don't think that those who hold the strings of the controlled assets have to try too hard. Maybe they thought that even a hint of "skullduggery" on the 9/11 OCT would see the streets filled with angry people. Didn't happen. It was easy. So, they rely solely on MSM and people hanging on to every word of the "alternative media". Keep repeating the message that people want to hear and dismiss, narrow down and marginalize those who see through the bullshit.

It's okay forum members here and open-minded folks elsewhere seeing through it but we are unimportant to them. We are the "conspiracy theorists".

Chomsky doesn't care now. He's at the end of the road. Job done until the next wordsmith fills his boots.

[evanlong]

Thing is Evan, I don't think that those who hold the strings of the controlled assets have to try too hard. Maybe they thought that even a hint of "skullduggery" on the 9/11 OCT would see the streets filled with angry people. Didn't happen. It was easy.

I'll come back to this once I've read the link, but I want to add that I think it's even easier than that. It takes a lot more than a hint to convince people. Even a whole "inside job" book by Chomsky or ten men of his stature couldn't do it, and even if a majority of people were convinced, it'd be quite another thing to translate that opinion into political action.

[evanlong]

Chomsky was gung-ho from the get-go.

Q: NATO is keeping quiet until they find out whether the attack was internal or external. How do you
interpret this?

a: I do not think that that is the reason for NATO's hesitation. There is no serious doubt that the attack was
"external."

This was in 2001. Was he prepped on this? I wonder.

[onesliceshort]

Chomsky was gung-ho from the get-go.



This was in 2001. Was he prepped on this? I wonder.

Exactly the same quote stood out to me.

[hdog]

Noam, as most of you are probably aware, is a professor MIT as is or was Thomas Eagar of 'truss failure theory" fame. MIT scientists also fudged data on cold fusion experiments and James Woods, who after 9/11 spun a tale of suspicious Arabs on a flight he was on, attended MIT on a scholarship.

Great place.

[onesliceshort]

The intellectual tradition is one of servility to power, and if I didn't betray it I'd be ashamed of myself.
Noam Chomsky

On 9/11

"technical experiments under controlled conditions" (NIST)

"the belief..that it could have been done has such low credibility"

"even if it were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares?"

Noam Chomsky

Barrie Zwicker has Chomsky pegged @41mins into this video.



and here..



Bear this in mind and watch this interview...

[evanlong]

One of the arguments he makes in the third video is that stories like the "9/11 conspiracy myth" and the "Israel lobby story" is that they help to enforce a sense of powerlessness among the "believers." This doesn't necessarily follow at all. Anyone can use any bad news as a reinforcement for a general belief that the world is doomed and humanity is powerless. 9/11 and Israel are not special in this way, and there are plenty of people who are quite active on these issues (i. e. haven't given up).

[hdog]

One of the arguments he makes in the third video is that stories like the "9/11 conspiracy myth" and the "Israel lobby story" is that they help to enforce a sense of powerlessness among the "believers." This doesn't necessarily follow at all. Anyone can use any bad news as a reinforcement for a general belief that the world is doomed and humanity is powerless. 9/11 and Israel are not special in this way, and there are plenty of people who are quite active on these issues (i. e. haven't given up).

That's funny because a while back some article or editorial in Time magazine said it was comforting to believe in 'conspiracy theories.' They sure cover all the bases.

[evanlong]

I must be on to something. I started to debate the guy who posted the third video, and within three rounds, he closed comments on the video, deleting all 650+ comments in the process. Echoes of the Infoshop incident are here.

[onesliceshort]

I must be on to something. I started to debate the guy who posted the third video, and within three rounds, he closed comments on the video, deleting all 650+ comments in the process. Echoes of the Infoshop incident are here.

Jeez, I just saw one of his "answers" to you at his home page..

This video isn't about Chomsky trying to prove the official story or not this video is about conspiracy theorists, hence its title. I didn't title it "Noam Chomsky discusses the 9/11 Official Story""

What a crock.