Sunday, November 07, 2010

Chomsky Nibbles At the Apple

Labels:

91 Comments:

At 07 November, 2010 07:51, Blogger Damian said...

Note the TV network: Press TV, Iran's state-owned propaganda channel, which also regularly broadcasts Holocaust denial. St. Noam was either ignorant of this, or just didn't care.

 
At 07 November, 2010 08:09, Blogger Greg said...

In Chomsky's defense, I think his cliams are that the US had no reason to beleive that the Taliban was involved, not that there were no Muslim extremist organizations involved.

Also, Chomsky beleives that anyone who even looks at a gun is a terrorist.

 
At 07 November, 2010 10:16, Blogger Alex said...

Eh. He's always been an ignorant jackass. Nothing he does will ever surprise me, unless it involves being reasonable for a change.

 
At 07 November, 2010 11:57, Blogger Garry said...

Everything you need to know about Chomsky is here:

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf

 
At 07 November, 2010 16:05, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Chomsky is always good for comic relief, that's the only reason MIT keeps him around.

 
At 07 November, 2010 18:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Sorry, I'm not buying it.

As anyone who's marginally informed knows, Noam Chomsky is no friend of the troofers.

For example,

"...And then they say, '...here's something I can do. I can become a qualified civil engineer in an hour, and prove that Bush blew up the World Trade Center.'

"I'm pretty sure that in Washington they must be clapping. A couple of years ago I came across a Pentagon document that was about declassification procedures. Among other things it proposed that the government should periodically declassify information about the Kennedy assassination. Let people trace whether Kennedy was killed by the mafia, so activists will go off on a wild-goose chase instead of pursuing the real problems or getting organized. It wouldn't shock me if thirty years from now we discover in the declassified records that the 911 industry was being fed by the administration."
-- Noam Chomsky, MIT professor of Linguistics.

Source: YouTube: Noam Chomsky--The Real 911 Conspiracy.

 
At 07 November, 2010 19:08, Blogger Nike shox clearance said...

Pretty good post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your blog posts.Any way Ill be subscribing to your feed and I hope you post again soon.

Our company provides Nike Shox Clearance rapid and safe, free shipping network marketing.

 
At 08 November, 2010 00:03, Blogger eromitlab said...

Truthers have been flogging this one all weekend. AJ, 911blogger, their acolytes that spam social news sites with their troof crap... they've all been promoting this with some even claiming that Chomsky is "changing his mind" in regards to da twoof. Hardly. Just another in the long, rich line of twoofer quote mines, misinterpretations, re-interpretations and fallacies used to make it seem like people with some shred of credibility believe their crap.

 
At 08 November, 2010 09:32, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

Yeah, and the Khmer Rouge was just an agrarian reform movement, right, you licker of communist ass, you America hating baffon?

 
At 08 November, 2010 12:50, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Pat Curley's Greatest Hits compilation:

1. The column failed over 8 floors.

2. How retarded can you be (to not believe the fraudulent me)?

3. Troy is my buddy.

4. I'll miss you, Dad (but I'll shit on your name just the same).

 
At 08 November, 2010 13:20, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Pat Curley's Greatest Hits compilation, continued:

1. You know, I mean... You know, I mean.

2. Ice Cream Movement

3. Nico welcome, Nike not.

4. Hugh P. on my face, I shit down your throat.

 
At 08 November, 2010 13:31, Blogger Billman said...

So Pat Cowardly's point is that he's a dangerous and angry stalker, and that you should totally listen to him when he says 9/11 was an inside jobby job because of these things.

 
At 08 November, 2010 17:59, Blogger Joseph Nobles said...

The 9/11 Truth advocates are now quoting JREF's Hal Bidlack. It seems that after three presentations over four years or so, they finally browbeat their way into a plank on the Colorado Democratic Party. You can find the platform at their website. Hal Bidlack was the platform chairman, and his statement about the whole process is being quoted as if he's saying something about the quality of the 9/11 Truth evidence. The actual vote for the 9/11 Truth plank was rather contentious, as the PDF documents. But it's on there.

Here's the link to the 9/11 Truth press release. The link there to the Colorado Democratic Party platform is correct. I got the platform at the CDP website, and it's the same.

We went after Corsi. Now it's time to wear out the CDP for this vote. I hope Hal can be left out, because you know and I know he's no 9/11 Truth advocate at all.

 
At 08 November, 2010 19:57, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Pat Cowardly, so, you are into guys sitting on your face. Please keep your sexual fantasies to yourself!

Chomsky seems to be saying the Taliban weren't guilty, he isn't exonerating Al Qaeda. Of course, twoofers are like a celibate 40 year old who thinks if a chick smiles at him that he's in love, so they'll take whatever they can get.

We went after Corsi. Now it's time to wear out the CDP for this vote.

Isn't that CDP platform six months old, why are twoofers only touting it now? As for dissing them, one should start by asking Colorado's elected Democratic officials if they endorse the twoof plant. I'm sure they don't.

 
At 08 November, 2010 20:47, Blogger Joseph Nobles said...

I can't understand the 9/11 Truth timetable on events. The press release is all over their corner of the Internet, though. It just made it to DU, though, and seeing Hal's name on there has made me see red.

 
At 08 November, 2010 20:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

What a joke you guys are. Chomsky clearly says that the USA demanded that the Taliban "turn over to the United States, the people who they accused of having been involved in World Trade Center and Pentagon terrorist acts."

He then says the Taliban asked for evidence, and that the USA did not provide any evidence because they did not have any.

That's saying that the USA had no evidence against those they accused of being the perps, i.e.,
al Qaeda.

 
At 08 November, 2010 22:08, Blogger Greg said...

snug.bug

When you connect the dots, you can not make up your own dots.

 
At 08 November, 2010 23:46, Blogger Steve said...

OT Did you guys see this?

http://www.examiner.com/la-county-libertarian-in-los-angeles/rice-university-jewish-studies-professor-calls-police-over-youtube-9-11-video-1

 
At 09 November, 2010 00:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

Quite right, Greg, which is why I described the actual dots in Chomsky's statement instead of inventing my dots like you and eromitlab and ConsDemo did.

 
At 09 November, 2010 05:35, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"OT Did you guys see this?"

Sweet. A link to an anti-semitic conspiracy loon.

Good job, good job.

 
At 09 November, 2010 06:07, Blogger Ian G. said...

That's saying that the USA had no evidence against those they accused of being the perps, i.e.,
al Qaeda.


Which is false.

 
At 09 November, 2010 06:16, Blogger Billman said...

Intent, motive, opportunity, plus the whole admission to doing it (plus DNA found at the scene, as well as other items in car trunks, hotel rooms, etc...) = evidence, Brian.

"ZOMG! I cannot grasp anything beyond high school physics, therefore THERMITE!" Does NOT = evidence.

 
At 09 November, 2010 08:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, if they had evidence, why didn't they provide it?

Billman, Chomsky said it, not I. I'm merely trying to clarify the facts. And here's you, the Keystone Detective, getting mixed up about who said what.

DNA was found, yes, or alleged to be found. How did the DNA prove al Qaeda did it?

 
At 09 November, 2010 08:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

Or is DNA just magic one-size-firs-all evidence that proves whatever the state wants it to
prove?

 
At 09 November, 2010 08:53, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, if they had evidence, why didn't they provide it?

They didn't provide it to YOU. Who cares?

DNA was found, yes, or alleged to be found. How did the DNA prove al Qaeda did it?

Oh boy, here we go. Brian Good will now freestyle about his expertise in forensics, which given his past babblings, will prove to be about as extensive as his expertise in physics, architecture, engineering, politics, philosophy, history, and math.

Is there a term for the opposite of Renaissance Man? You know, someone who is utterly incompetent at a wide variety of academic pursuits? Brian is that man.

 
At 09 November, 2010 09:31, Blogger Billman said...

Wait, Snug Bug, are you Brian Good? Because my comment was directed at Brian Good.

 
At 09 November, 2010 09:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

They didn't provide the evidence to Taliban because, as Chomsky said, "they didn't have any." Colin Powell promised that a White Paper would be issued but it never was.

On the DNA issue, you simply produce your usual mucous ad hominem, showing you can't answer the question: How does the DNA prove al Qaeda did it? Maybe Billman is impressed merely by the fact that there was DNA. Of what relevance is the DNA?

 
At 09 November, 2010 10:00, Blogger Billman said...

Where in my comment did I say, out of all the things I listed, that I was basing the evidence on JUST DNA?

Did I not list other things besides DNA?

Are you just attacking DNA only, as if tearing that down will prove everything else used as evidence will be thrown out? How about addressing the other things listed? Hotel room evidence, stuff found in car trunks at airports, security videos, eyewitness testimony of the hijackers, etc...

Besides, where did the DNA associated to the hijackers come from, then?

 
At 09 November, 2010 10:03, Blogger Billman said...

Dylan Avery says the evidence we used was that Osama Bin Laden tape. So which is it?

 
At 09 November, 2010 10:05, Blogger Billman said...

Can someone please try to use Rex Tomb's only-heard-from-a-3rd-party "quote" as evidence again? Cause I always love that.

 
At 09 November, 2010 10:28, Blogger Ian G. said...

They didn't provide the evidence to Taliban because, as Chomsky said, "they didn't have any." Colin Powell promised that a White Paper would be issued but it never was.

False.

 
At 09 November, 2010 11:45, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"Chomsky Nibbles At the Apple"

...and Fat Pat shows us he can't stop thinking about food again.

Still trying to figure out the difference between iron and rust, Pat?

 
At 09 November, 2010 12:02, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yo "Cosmos"! Are you still trying to tell us that 3,900 lbs. of "nanothermite" can produce 10,000 tons of iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres, shit-for-brains?

 
At 09 November, 2010 12:29, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

GuntherHeil! Why did Pat call you 'retarded' for not agreeing with him on where the melted iron came from? Are you still 'retarded', or did you see the light?

 
At 09 November, 2010 12:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Pat didn't call me "retarded."

Try again, Pinocchio.

And when you're done, ass face, here's a link to the RJ Lee Report.

Source: WTC Dust Signature Report: Composition and Morphology: Summary Report, Prepared for: Deutsche Bank.

Cite the RJ Lee Report as concerns the source of the iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres.

A simple cut-and-paste of the relevant material from the RJ Lee Report will suffice.

Now, get to work, Pinocchio.

 
At 09 November, 2010 13:38, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

But he DID call you 'retarded', because your stated origins for the melted iron differ from his. Specifically, he asked 'how retarded do you have to be' to not believe torches put the melted iron in the dust. So exactly how retarded are you on Pat's scale, GB? Don't be so afraid to answer. It's a simple question.

How retarded are you?

 
At 09 November, 2010 14:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's not an answer, Pinocchio.

Where's the citation from the RJ Lee Report?

 
At 09 November, 2010 14:16, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Why are you so afraid to answer a simple question?

You sound like Pat after I asked him to show his sources: scared into silence.

Good luck with that.

 
At 09 November, 2010 14:30, Blogger Garry said...

'He then says the Taliban asked for evidence, and that the USA did not provide any evidence because they did not have any'.

Which, as I've pointed out to you before (repeatedly), happens to be bullshit. How long are you going to keep repeating this tired old lie, Brian?:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/world/main310852.shtml

'The rejection came in a statement by Abdul Salam Zaeef, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan. Asked whether the Taliban would hand over bin Laden, Zaeef said, "No." But his translator said, "No, not without evidence."'

So his translator deliberately embellished what Zaeef actually said.

'He also said he had no information on bin Laden's current whereabouts'.

Which is slightly difficult to believe, given that the majority of his fighters (in 055 Brigade) were manning the front-lines against the Northern Alliance.

Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon also record the Taliban's attempts to fend of Clinton administration demands to hand over Bin Laden during the 1990s, which included the same excuses offered up post-9/11. Benjamin and Simon also state that the Taliban were offered evidence of OBL's complicity in terrorist attacks such as the Nairobi and Dar es-Salaam bombings, but still refuse to cooperate:

http://www.amazon.com/Age-Sacred-Terror-Daniel-Benjamin/dp/0375508597

Memo to Brian Good. Men with beards and turbans can tell lies.

 
At 09 November, 2010 14:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"Cosmos" (aka "Pat Cowardly") wrote, "...Why are you so afraid to answer a simple question?"

I answered your question, asshole. Pat didn't call me retarded because he didn't direct the statement to me. Are you really that dense, "Cosmos"?

Of course you are.

Now, answer the question, Pinocchio.

Here's a link to the RJ Lee Report:

Source: WTC Dust Signature Report: Composition and Morphology: Summary Report, Prepared for: Deutsche Bank.

Cite the RJ Lee Report as concerns the source of the iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres.

A simple cut-and-paste of the relevant material from the RJ Lee Report will suffice.

Now, get to work, Pinocchio.

 
At 09 November, 2010 20:30, Blogger Joseph Nobles said...

$75,450 - that's Richard Gage's salary from AE911Truth in 2009. I found the 2008 and 2009 Form 990-EZs at guidestar.org.

 
At 09 November, 2010 20:31, Blogger Joseph Nobles said...

By the way, that was 21% of the take in 2009.

 
At 09 November, 2010 22:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, I'm just telling you what Chomsky said. John Pilger speaks of other attempts by Taliban to turn over bin Laden--offers which were rejected by the USA. Some say there were three such offers after 9/11, and there was one early in 2001 as well.

 
At 10 November, 2010 01:21, Blogger Garry said...

'John Pilger speaks of other attempts by Taliban to turn over bin Laden--offers which were rejected by the USA'.

And as I've pointed out to you before, Brian, this supposed 'offer' was spurious, insofar as bin Laden was to be turned over to a 'trial' conducted by mullahs associated with the fundamentalist Islamist parties (Jamaat Islami etc) that were in league with al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

So are you actually prepared to admit that you don't know what you're talking about?

 
At 11 November, 2010 17:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, it is you that don't know what you are talking about.

As early as 1998 Taliban was in discussions with the US about expelling bin Laden.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB134/Document%204%20-%20STATE%20220495.pdf

There were more talks in late 2000.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200406/s1125339.htm

And more in August 2001:

http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/14/human_spies/index.html

And by the way, Taliban warned of the upcoming 9/11 attacks (Muttawakil).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2242594.stm

Bob Graham, Porter Goss, and John Kyl talk with Taliban ambassador about extraditing Osama.
Before 9/11.

http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/14/human_spies/index.html

Pakistan negotiates Osama's extradition to Pakistan after 9/11, Osama and Taliban agree, US scotches deal. http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/PIL111C.html

Taliban offer 10/14/01 to turn over bin Laden (Haji Abdul Kabir, the Taliban's deputy prime minister)
"Bush rejects Taliban offer to surrender bin Laden"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/bush-rejects-taliban-offer-to-surrender-bin-laden-631436.html

Taliban offer 10/16 to turn over bin Laden for trial (no proof required--Muttawakil again)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/17/afghanistan.terrorism11

 
At 11 November, 2010 18:27, Blogger Triterope said...

So are you actually prepared to admit that you don't know what you're talking about?

Who, Brian Good? Never. The more you disprove his argument, the more he defends it. He has no clue when he's been made to look like an idiot. It really is something to behold.

 
At 11 November, 2010 22:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

So TR, when confronted with actual evidence from mainstream news sources, all you can do is reiterate empty claims of victory, canned ad hominems, and meaningless cliches.

"Something to behold, indeed," chump.

 
At 12 November, 2010 05:35, Blogger Garry said...

Brian, if you actually read the sources you cite in your defence, you'd actually see that they prove my essential points which are as follows (and I'll make them clear, so that even you can understand them).

The Taliban responded to US demands to render bin Laden both BEFORE and AFTER 9/11 with a series of mixed messages and outright distortions which showed their bad faith - 'Bin Laden isn't in Afghanistan'/'Bin Laden is in Afghanistan but we can't control him'/'Bin Laden is our guest so we can't render him'/'We'll render him if you give us evidence'/'We need more evidence'/'We can't find bin Laden'/etc etc etc.

To quote the National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book you cite:

'Highlights of the 16 documents posted today include:

An August 23, 1998 cable from the U.S. Department of State following the conversation with Mullah Omar that provided evidence linking bin Laden with the U.S. Embassy attacks in Africa and several other terrorist plots, including a plan to blow up U.S. airliners in the Pacific.

Frequent contradictions in Taliban statements to U.S. diplomats. The Taliban claimed that 80% of their officials and a majority of Afghans oppose Osama bin Laden's presence, yet also claimed that the Taliban would be overthrown were they to extradite bin Laden, due to his popularity in Afghanistan and around the Muslim world. Mullah Omar called bin Laden "an enemy," according to a Pakistani informant, while other Taliban officials tell the U.S. that Mullah Omar is the primary reason why bin Laden continued to be afforded sanctuary in Afghanistan, despite the fact that 80% of Taliban officials opposed his presence.

An October 1998 cable from the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad documenting statements made by the Taliban Foreign Minister, Maulawi Wakil Ahmed, that the Taliban "do not support terrorism," and that bin Laden was moved to Kandahar "to keep a better watch on him." In a November 1998 cable from the State Department, a low-level Taliban official assures the American ambassador that bin Laden is "now under full Taliban control and in no position to commit terrorist acts."

[So by their terms they broke their word by allowing 9/11 to happen - G]

Taliban reassurances on terrorism also include claims that they "have always and will condemn terrorism, including hijacking," according to a February 2000 State Department cable.

[And again, they broke their word by supporting the hijacking of Indian Airlines Flight 814 two months beforehand - G]

A December 1998 cable from the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad demonstrating that bin Laden promoted further acts of terrorism against the U.S. In his first interview after the August 20, 1998 missile strikes, bin Laden reiterated his fatwa (religious ruling) urging Muslims to kill U.S., U.K., and Israeli citizens and "reserving the right to use weapons of mass destruction (WMD)."

Despite several promises to the U.S. that they would keep bin Laden away from the media, the Taliban allowed him to be interviewed "so that he could renounce terrorism," according to Taliban representative Syedur Rahman Haqqani. Instead, bin Laden strongly reiterated his commitment to terrorism against American citizens and once again claimed the right to use weapons of mass destruction against Western targets. Despite the fact that bin Laden "did not do what he promised," the Taliban did not agree to expel him.'

 
At 12 November, 2010 05:36, Blogger Garry said...

You cite with approval the claim by an unnamed aide to the Taliban Foreign Minister at the time - Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil - that he had apparently warned the US government of an impending attack on their country. If that was the case, and the Taliban had foreknowledge that AQ were preparing for 9/11, then why were they demanding evidence of the latter's guilt as a precondition for handing bin Laden over?

You clearly haven't thought this one through. But then your job does involve mopping floors, so I'm not surprised at your state of mental confusion.

 
At 12 November, 2010 16:51, Blogger Triterope said...

So TR, when confronted with actual evidence from mainstream news sources, all you can do is reiterate empty claims of victory, canned ad hominems, and meaningless cliches.

Honestly Brian, I don't even bother reading your bullshit anymore.

 
At 12 November, 2010 22:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

So Garry, your long obfuscation does nothing to refute the point that there were many discussions with Taleban about turning bin Laden over. Was there something about the Independant's headline "Bush rejects Taliban offer to surrender bin Laden" that you didn't understand?

And your facile assertion of a contradiction between the warning passed on by Foreign Minister Muttawakil of impending al Qaeda attacks in the USA and his request for evidence that al Qaeda did 9/11 simply shows again your failure to think the issue through.

There's no contradiction there. The warning he passed on was second hand, from Uzbek sources. He had no direct knowledge. Nor did he have any direct knowledge that al Qaeda had done 9/11. Thus it is perfectly reasonable both for him to warn of possible upcoming attacks and to request evidence that al Qaeda did them.

Ya'all should try mopping floors some time, it gives time to think and to avoid faulty reasoning.

 
At 13 November, 2010 05:36, Blogger Triterope said...

Ya'all should try mopping floors some time, it gives time to think and to avoid faulty reasoning.

Awww, isn't that cute? Brian's trying to make his lack of education into a virtue.

It's a shame Brian lives in such a left-wing city. With that attitude, he'd be a perfect Tea Party candidate. I bet this incompetent boob could get elected to Congress if you ran him in the right district.

 
At 13 November, 2010 07:30, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ya'all should try mopping floors some time, it gives time to think and to avoid faulty reasoning.

Since when do you mop floors, Brian? You're unemployed. You were too incompetent to mop floors and got fired, and now you spend 18 hours a day stalking the love of your life, Willie Rodriguez, and babbling about widows and free-fall speed.

 
At 13 November, 2010 09:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

So TR, what gives you the idea that I'm uneducated?

 
At 13 November, 2010 11:05, Blogger Garry said...

'So Garry, your long obfuscation does nothing to refute the point that there were many discussions with Taleban about turning bin Laden over'.

Brian, either you have special needs, or you're just proving how intellectually dishonest the average troofer is.

The reason why 'there were many discussions with the Taliban about turning bin Laden over', in the months leading to 9/11 and the immediate aftermath, is because US officials keep asking Mullah Omar's regime to hand OBL over, and the latter keeps stonewalling them. It's the conclusion that your sources point to, but one which seems to escape your attention.

'Was there something about the Independant's headline "Bush rejects Taliban offer to surrender bin Laden" that you didn't understand?'

No. After all, it was the same BS that had been offered in the past. The 'offer' was conditional upon a cessation of OEF, and the provision of 'evidence' of bin Laden's complicity in 9/11. Seeing as the Taliban had been given evidence of AQ's involvement in previous terrorist atrocities and had done nothing, and seeing as (as per your National Security Archive Briefing Book) they had demonstrated repeated bad faith, and had lied constantly about their ties to AQ, there was no reason for anyone who wasn't retarded to take this seriously.

 
At 13 November, 2010 11:10, Blogger Garry said...

'There's no contradiction there. The warning he passed on was second hand, from Uzbek sources. He had no direct knowledge. Nor did he have any direct knowledge that al Qaeda had done 9/11'.

Oh really? Let's see what your source actually says:

'Mr Muttawakil, who was known to be deeply unhappy with the Arab and other foreign militants in Afghanistan, learned of Osama bin Laden's plan in July.

The attack was imminent, he discovered, and it would be huge. Bin Laden hoped to kill thousands of US citizens.

The information had come not from other members of the Taleban but from the leader of the Islamic movement of Uzbekistan, Tohir Yuldash, who had found refuge in Afghanistan and had good links with al-Qaeda'.

So, the Taliban regime have direct evidence from the leader of the IMU (which had taken shelter in Afghanistan alongside AQ, and subsequently fought alongside it against the Northern Alliance) that bin Laden was planning a major terrorist atrocity against the USA, but they did nothing to stop this attack, which was plotted from their own state.

Furthermore, even though they have advance warning, they still demand 'evidence' from the US government about bin Laden's complicity, even though they know full well that their guest and ally was responsible.

I think you've just proved to us all why you clean floors, Brian. Furthermore, from your comments here it seems that you do this with your tongue, as opposed to a mop and pan.

 
At 13 November, 2010 11:49, Blogger Ian G. said...

So TR, what gives you the idea that I'm uneducated?

Well, we can start with everything you post being a bunch of ignorant illogical lies.

 
At 14 November, 2010 09:19, Blogger Triterope said...

So TR, what gives you the idea that I'm uneducated?

Blog posts have a 3000-word limit, Brian.

 
At 14 November, 2010 11:12, Blogger Garry said...

Aside from inadvertedly providing more proof (if ever it was required) of AQ complicity in and Taliban foreknowledge of 9/11, Brian has shown us that troofers have quite a few things in common with Mullah Omar's boys. Both are ill-educated fanatics, and both continue to clamour for evidence on the 9/11 attacks that has long since been provided.

 
At 14 November, 2010 11:24, Blogger Ian G. said...

Brian has shown us that troofers have quite a few things in common with Mullah Omar's boys. Both are ill-educated fanatics, and both continue to clamour for evidence on the 9/11 attacks that has long since been provided.

And both REALLY need to get laid.

 
At 14 November, 2010 13:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry wrote: "it was the same BS that had been offered in the past. The 'offer' was conditional upon a cessation of OEF, and the provision of 'evidence' of bin Laden's complicity in 9/11."

And given that Bush claimed they had evidence, and the implication was that we were going into Afghanistan to get the perps of 9/11, it seems a perfectly reasonable offer. Your assumption of bad faith is not justified. If you look into the negotiations you can see that many of the apparent contradictions are simply a matter of Taliban trying to explore all possible ways of resolving the issue.

Why not accept their offer? What was to lose if they stalled for three days? Obviously, as Chomsky pointed out, the reason Bush refused to provide the evidence is because he had no evidence.

Garry wrote: "The Taliban regime have direct evidence ... that bin Laden was planning a major terrorist atrocity against the USA, but they did nothing to stop this attack"

That's not true. They tried to warn about it but the US wouldn't listen. Maybe after having all their offers to turn over bin Laden rejected, they concluded that the US was not operating in good faith--especially after the "Carpet of Gold/Carpet of Bombs" demand a few months before. Do you think that attacking bin Laden in Kandahar would have stopped 9/11?

Garry wrote: "they know full well that their guest and ally was responsible."

They didn't know that at all. Why should they take Tohir Yuldash's word for it? How do you know Yuldash's warnings were applicable to 9/11? You are very quick to believe what you want to believe. The situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan was very complex, with a lot of people running around with very tangled motivations and loyalties.

The USA never provided the evidence that al Qaeda did it--just a bunch of alleged transcripts the CIA cooked up after waterboarding KSM and the schizophrenic Zubaydah. Former CIA officer Angelo Codevilla seems to think that KSM did it outside of the al Qaeda umbrella. And the extreme complexity of the politics of the situation is shown by the fact that the alleged perps were allowed to fly out of Kunduz and walk out of Tora Bora even while we bombed the hell out of Afghanistan demanding that they be turned over.

 
At 14 November, 2010 13:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian wrote: both need to get laid.

It's nice of you to think of me, but I'm really not interested.

 
At 14 November, 2010 13:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 14 November, 2010 16:55, Blogger Triterope said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 15 November, 2010 06:12, Blogger Ian G. said...

It's nice of you to think of me, but I'm really not interested.

That's good to know, given your sexual obsessions with both Willie Rodriguez and Carol Brouillet.

 
At 15 November, 2010 06:29, Blogger Ian G. said...

BTW, anyone else ever notice how Brian does the whole "I know you are but what am I" thing when he's really pissed?

Point out his sexual obsession with Willie Rodriguez and he starts calling you gay. Point out that he's a failed janitor who lives with his parents and he starts calling you an uneducated bum. My favorite was when he couldn't handle everyone calling him petgoat and punxsutawneybarney, so he started posting under the handles of other people here.

 
At 15 November, 2010 07:18, Blogger Garry said...

Brian obviously can't handle the fact that the very sources he uses to prove his 'Taliban were innocent and only wanted 'proof'' hypothesis actually proves the opposite, which is why he has to invent some new lies, such as the 'carpet of bombs or gold' myth (debunked here):

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2002/08/15/forbidden_truth/

And the myth that KSM only confessed to 9/11 because he was waterboarded:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/04/alqaida.terrorism

Brian also misses the fact that the escape of bin Laden at Tora Bora also undermines a central contention of the 'troofers' - that the Bush administration acted under LIHOP and had a pre-prepared plan to occupy Afghanistan.

But then what do you expect from a sex offender?

 
At 15 November, 2010 09:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, I've already been over this. The poor reasoning of the Salon article is shown by a false dichotomy on the first page, implying that if Bush did not invade Afghanistan for oil, then the "Carpet of Gold/Carpet of Bombs" threat did not happen.

As I recall, the article goes on to say that Tom Simons, the one who is alleged to have made the threat, does not deny that he said that.

As for Yosri Foudra, he's admitted that he lied in his stories, and he can't back up his claims.

Your remarks about Tora Bora make no sense. There is no logical conflict between LIHOP and letting Osama go, or between having a prepared invasion plan and ignoring Tora Bora. The fact of the Kunduz airlift shows that letting Osama and 1600 others walk out of Tora Bora was no mistake.

That you feel you must resort to the ad hominem shows that you are not capable of making your case with facts.

 
At 15 November, 2010 13:48, Blogger Garry said...

'The poor reasoning of the Salon article is shown by a false dichotomy on the first page, implying that if Bush did not invade Afghanistan for oil, then the "Carpet of Gold/Carpet of Bombs" threat did not happen'.

Really, so how about the fact that (1) Afghanistan has no oil, (2) Taliban representatives were not at the Berlin meeting, and were therefore not in a position to be negotiated with or threatened, (3) the US delegates present were all ex-Clinton administration officials, and therefore out of public life, (4) nobody can confirm Naik's account, (5) Naik himself recalled no discussion about a pipeline, and (6) the 17,000 Russian troops that were supposedly on hand to reinvade Afghanistan (according to Naik) were nowhere to be seen once OEF happened?

'As for Yosri Foudra, he's admitted that he lied in his stories, and he can't back up his claims'.

That's another lie on your part, Brian. Foudra (a journalist for the notoriously pro-American station Al-Jazeera - hint, I'm being ironic here) admitted amending the details of his interviews at the request of his interviewees - a precondition for them talking to the press - but the interview material itself has never been discredited, not even by AQ, much less KSM.

'Your remarks about Tora Bora make no sense. There is no logical conflict between LIHOP and letting Osama go, or between having a prepared invasion plan and ignoring Tora Bora'.

This is bollocks, Brian, and you know it. If - according to your grand 'theory' - the real purpose behind 9/11 is to seize Afghanistan and build a pipeline through it, then surely you don't miss out on the steps to eradicate the Taliban and AQ so that you can achieve both objectives.

Anyway, I'm glad you've given up arguing that the Taliban were innocent. Here's a picture of Willie Rodriguez for you to wank over. No need to thank me now:

http://www.911dust.org/images/willie_rodriguez.jpg

 
At 15 November, 2010 15:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, your list of purported facts has nothing to do with the false dichotomy of the Salon article and so only serves to squirt ink in the water. Taliban boycotted the Berlin meeting, but the several representatives of Pakistan and ISI reported on it to them.

Fouda admitted that he lied about the date of the interview, switching it from June to May to April. The audio recording of the interview was distorted so voices can not be recognized. There is no reason to believe that the people Fouda met with, if any, were actually the people he claimed them to be.

I didn't espouse the theory that the war was about a pipeline. If anything the war seems to be about opium, minerals, Afghanistan's strategic position with respect to all the 'stans and Iran, about fat profits to military contractors, and creating a state of Orwellian endless war. Letting Osama and Taliban go in no way hinders any of those missions and facilitates most or even all of them.

I didn't argue that the Taliban was innocent. I reported that Chomsky said the US offered no evidence against them--and he was right.

 
At 15 November, 2010 15:30, Blogger Ian G. said...

If anything the war seems to be about opium, minerals, Afghanistan's strategic position with respect to all the 'stans and Iran, about fat profits to military contractors, and creating a state of Orwellian endless war.

Brian, can you expand on this a bit? Are you saying the US wants opium production to flourish? Also, what minerals? Also, I love the idea of creating "endless war" in Afghanistan. Brian, the place wasn't exactly Switzerland before 9/11/01.

I didn't argue that the Taliban was innocent.

You're a truther, Brian. You believe the Taliban is innocent. Stop being such a liar.

I reported that Chomsky said the US offered no evidence against them--and he was right.

Stop lying, Brian.

 
At 16 November, 2010 00:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

Don't tell me what I believe, lame-brain. You're incompetent to articulate what YOU believe.

 
At 16 November, 2010 03:35, Blogger Garry said...

'You're incompetent to articulate what YOU believe'.

Coming from you, Brian, that's pretty fucking rich.

'I didn't argue that the Taliban was innocent'.

Yes you did. Stop lying, stalker.

'Fouda admitted that he lied about the date of the interview, switching it from June to May to April'.

As he admitted, he amended details of the date of the interview to protect his sources. Not sure I agree with his thinking here, but then I'm not a journalist, far less one for Al-Jazeera.

'The audio recording of the interview was distorted so voices can not be recognized. There is no reason to believe that the people Fouda met with, if any, were actually the people he claimed them to be'.

So why hasn't AQ (or KSM) disavowed interview. They've had seven years to do so, and KSM could have issued a statement shortly after the 'Guardian' printed Fouda's story. You're just making shit up as you always do, Brian.

'Garry, your list of purported facts has nothing to do with the false dichotomy of the Salon article and so only serves to squirt ink in the water. Taliban boycotted the Berlin meeting, but the several representatives of Pakistan and ISI reported on it to them'.

Yet another lie. The only representative of the Pakistani government present was the diplomat Naik, and his account cannot be corroborated. Furthermore, even he denies that a pipeline was mentioned in his conversations with ex-Clinton administration officials (here's a hint, Brian, the Berlin meeting took place when the Bush administration was in office).

'I didn't espouse the theory that the war was about a pipeline. If anything the war seems to be about opium, minerals, Afghanistan's strategic position with respect to all the 'stans and Iran, about fat profits to military contractors, and creating a state of Orwellian endless war. Letting Osama and Taliban go in no way hinders any of those missions and facilitates most or even all of them'.

All of which is proof that you have the psychopathic mindset associated with a deviant and an obsessive. I don't believe Kevin Barrett on anything he says, except this:

http://www.truthjihad.com/good.htm

 
At 16 November, 2010 06:08, Blogger Ian G. said...

Don't tell me what I believe, lame-brain. You're incompetent to articulate what YOU believe.

Poor Brian, he's all upset that we keep laughing at him.

Anyway, what I believe is what we call "reality": that 19 Islamic radicals working for Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network hijacked 4 jetliners, crashing 3 of them into the WTC towers and the Pentagon. The impact and subsequent fires caused the collapse of the WTC towers.

Also, "snug.bug" is Brian Good, an ignorant obsessed lunatic who lives at home with his parents at age because he can't hold down a job as a janitor and is a sex stalker of both men (Willie Rodriguez) and women (Carol Brouillet).

Pretty easy to articulate what I believe.

 
At 16 November, 2010 10:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, you don't know what you're talking about. Three Pakistani generals attended the Berlin Gold/Bombs meeting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/22/afghanistan.september113

You have to rely on the ad hominem to maintain your own illusions.

Ian, it bothers me not one bit what a bunch of silly girls giggle at. I have the satisfaction that you demonstrate to curious lurkers the quality of what passes for thinking among the debunker crowd.

 
At 16 November, 2010 11:22, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, it bothers me not one bit what a bunch of silly girls giggle at.

YES!!! It makes me laugh when you call us girls, Brian. It's one reason why you're just so much more entertaining that the average lunatic in the "truth" movement.

I have the satisfaction that you demonstrate to curious lurkers the quality of what passes for thinking among the debunker crowd.

Yup, in your diseased mind, you can always be sure that a bunch of imaginary people are in awe of your genius, even if all real people, even (especially?) those in the "truth" movement think you're a deranged lunatic.

Seek professional help, Brian.

 
At 16 November, 2010 13:03, Blogger Garry said...

Brian, your story dates from 22nd September 2001, and contains Naik's account of what happened. The Salon story is more recent, and debunks the 'carpet of bombs/gold' story. Deal with it, and seek professional help for all your obsessions.

 
At 17 November, 2010 00:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, the Salon article doesn't debunk Naik's story at all--in fact it shows that Tom Simons does not deny that he made that statement.

The Salon article chooses sets up a certain French book I never heard of as a straw man and knocks it down. In its false dichotomy on the first page the article shows its essential irrationality.

 
At 17 November, 2010 02:51, Blogger Garry said...

'Garry, the Salon article doesn't debunk Naik's story at all--in fact it shows that Tom Simons does not deny that he made that statement'.

Are you a complete fucking moron as well as a sex-pest? This is what he actually says:

'It's possible that a mischievous American participant, after several drinks, may have thought it smart to evoke gold carpets and carpet bombs. Even Americans can't resist the temptation to be mischievous'.

Bottom line - Simons did not make the 'carpet of gold/bombs' statement, and no one can confirm Naik's story (and Naik himself admits that an oil pipeline wasn't even discussed).

I'm not surprised that a deviant like yourself has latched on to 9/11 truth. Maybe it's the same mindset that led you to get fixated on Carol Brouillet and Willie Rodriguez. You need help.

 
At 17 November, 2010 08:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

"A mischievous American participant, after several drinks, may have thought it smart to evoke gold carpets and carpet bombs" is not a denial, except on Planet Garry.

Also confined to the atmosphere of Planet Garry is the notion that "no one can confirm" Naik's story. The article says that most who were involved refuse to talk.

 
At 17 November, 2010 10:24, Blogger Garry said...

"A mischievous American participant, after several drinks, may have thought it smart to evoke gold carpets and carpet bombs"

It's called 'speculation', Brian. It's no substitute for fact. Serial fantasists and psychopaths like you may not be able to tell the difference, but there you go.

Furthermore, Damien Cave does not say that 'most who were involved refuse to talk'. In fact, he states the opposite - 'I tracked down the American participants in the July Berlin meeting, as well as Naik himself, and asked them what went on. All were eager to talk'.

It must suck being a loser, Brian. And for a grown man to still be living with his parents as well.

 
At 17 November, 2010 11:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, Tom Simons did not deny Niaz Naik's statement.

Damien Cave says "Ultimately, it may be impossible to know who is telling the truth about what happened in the July meetings. There were at least five other diplomats in Berlin, but they've all stayed silent."

The ones who were "eager to talk" were the American participants.

 
At 17 November, 2010 14:28, Blogger Garry said...

'Garry, Tom Simons did not deny Niaz Naik's statement'.

Brian, Simons did not confirm that a US official had employed the threats that Naik attributed to him and the other US officials present at the meeting. That's important. It's the same consideration you should have made when you asked yourself if Carol Brouillet or Willie Rodriguez wanted to get it on with you.

'Damien Cave says "Ultimately, it may be impossible to know who is telling the truth about what happened in the July meetings. There were at least five other diplomats in Berlin, but they've all stayed silent."'

But all the US participants talked to him. And seeing as this was supposed to be a 'threat' passed on by Americans (all of whom were out of office) to Niaz Naik, I think that's quite important, don't you?

Incidentally, why do you still live with your mum and dad. You're in your fifties, for fuck's sake.

 
At 17 November, 2010 19:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

Tom Simons did not admit to criminal extortion. How surprising is that?

The others did not admit to being accessories.

 
At 17 November, 2010 21:00, Blogger Ian G. said...

Brian, can you answer my question? Do you believe petgoat is a liar?

 
At 17 November, 2010 21:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I know you are a liar, so I have no way of knowing if what you claim about petgoat is true.

 
At 18 November, 2010 06:41, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, I know you are a liar, so I have no way of knowing if what you claim about petgoat is true.

You're really getting desperate, Brian. It's fun to see you try to keep stacking your lies without making them all collapse.

 
At 18 November, 2010 13:39, Blogger Garry said...

'Tom Simons did not admit to criminal extortion. How surprising is that?

The others did not admit to being accessories'.

Is this your way of admitting yet again that you've been caught out distorting the facts, Brian?

 
At 18 November, 2010 15:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

No, Garry, it's a way of saying that your Salon article is essentially meaningless because it's a case of the US guys' word against Niaz Naik's--and if the US guys said what Naik accuses them of, then of course they would lie about it.

And then the false dichotomy in the first page inspires doubt about the competence of the author of the story.

 
At 19 November, 2010 05:21, Blogger Garry said...

'No, Garry, it's a way of saying that your Salon article is essentially meaningless because it's a case of the US guys' word against Niaz Naik's--and if the US guys said what Naik accuses them of, then of course they would lie about it'.

So what you're saying, Brian, is that in your fantasy world the testimony of one individual counts for more than three, even though Naik has a history of bullshitting (as per the Salon article), and even though he does not confirm the pipeline claim that you cling to like a drowning man to a straw.

Do you fantasise about a threesome with Willie and Carol?

 
At 10 December, 2010 00:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

Do I fantasize about such a thing? No, it never occurred to me. You seem to enjoy the fantasy though.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home