"@197 CW certainly make good bargaining chips wouldn't you say?"

The very least of their uses, I'd say . . . .

Posted by: hmm | Sep 11 2013 17:30 utc | 201

197) They probably have. Tnat type of warfare is no longer feasable in a globalized world. People just travel too much. Take any city. How many of your own citizens would you hit?
In Israel's case there are absolute travel restrictions at the border. Massive use of chemical or biological weapons though would finish the state for good. Killing publicly over a 1000 civilians in Gaza with images of dead children in every living room of the world nearly finished the state for good last time they tried conventional weapons.
It just does not make sense to divide the world's population into tribes who fire missiles at each other.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 11 2013 17:31 utc | 202

@164

"I'm simply tired and unnerved by never ending jewish self retrospection..."

Yes, I'm with you. Some people have the LUXURY of being endlessly SELF-INDULGENT, as if the rest of the world needs to turn away from their own PRESENT-DAY suffering to pay attention to endless wailing over the past, self-analysis and remorse over their present-day sins attributed to past trauma.

I remember when that animal in Ohio, the one that kidnapped and imprisoned those girls for 10 years, tried to justify his crimes with trauma he suffers from his own bad childhood experiences. Here's my answer to him: FVCK YOU! ROT IN HELL. And no doubt that's exactly where he is right now.

Well my reply to Zionists is EXACTLY the same, and my reply to self-pitying Zionists is THE SAME. They've made millions of people pay for trauma that the majority of them never even suffered personally. Millions of people are living in misery this minute because of their actions and brutality. So I have no pity left for Zionists and their 70-year old wounds. Sorry, but my compassion is fully occupied with the millions of victims of their crimes and others in the world who suffer from catastrophic and violent events IN THE PRESENT.

Instead of wallowing in self-pity and endless self-indulgent psycho analysis, they should be personally involved in helping all victims of Zionist crimes, and there are many and there is work there for an entire lifetime!

Posted by: kalithea | Sep 11 2013 17:32 utc | 203

This is funny. Foreign Policy thinks Assad won the propaganda war without explaining where the rebels lost it (that video with the heart eating rebel probably did it, and a mass of other execution videos) ...

Posted by: somebody | Sep 11 2013 17:34 utc | 204

"197) They probably have. "

NO, The have not.

Stop talking shit, please.

Thanks

Posted by: hmm | Sep 11 2013 17:38 utc | 205

@201 "@197 CW certainly make good bargaining chips wouldn't you say?"

"The very least of their uses, I'd say . . . ."

The threat is greater than the effect I would say.

Posted by: dh | Sep 11 2013 17:40 utc | 206

Rowan Berkeley (200)

Maybe that's where the misunderstandings crept in. I don't need G. Atzmon (or anyone) to know that the zionists are insidious scum that remote controls fukuz, lies even with lips closed or when sleeping, and always play hide and hit games.

I don't need anyones help in understanding that some "truth" that must never be checked or researched, nor discussed, nor doubted unless one is ready to be sent to jail is but a big, fat, dirty lie.

And I don't care batshit whether puppet A (obama) f*cked puppet B (aipac) or whether it was theother way round. My approach is simple: Terminate both - or at least do not believe neither one - and enjoy your day.

Ceterum censeo israel delendum esse.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Sep 11 2013 17:41 utc | 207

@207 You obviously don't find the philosophical infighting entertaining Mr. P. It's Armageddon or nothing for you I guess.

Posted by: dh | Sep 11 2013 17:47 utc | 208

205) Fun fact: A bunker busting bomb hitting your chemical weapons depot or your nuclear reactor will make your own weapons destroy your own country. Which is part of the madness of bombing Syria to keep chemical weapons from being used. What if you hit a depot?
Though I agree, Syria's chemical weapons probably serve Assad in one respect - because no one has real control of the rebel groups, it is safer for everybody to keep him in power.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 11 2013 18:01 utc | 209

209) and this is the other effect of making chemical weapons the central issue.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 11 2013 18:03 utc | 210

@209 Missiles slamming into CW depots may be exactly what some people want. Of course the result would be total chaos and Syria would have nothing to lose by retaliating.

I don't think those weapons will be destroyed for a long time. They may be under international supervision of some kind. But the bargaining is just beginning.

Posted by: dh | Sep 11 2013 18:08 utc | 211

@kalithea #203

@164

"I'm simply tired and unnerved by never ending jewish self retrospection..."

Yes, I'm with you.

Me too. Just don't mix Atzmon in that crowd: he is their bete noir.

Posted by: claudio | Sep 11 2013 18:26 utc | 212

And here it comes

Drip, drip, courtesy of the delightful, not even slightly spook-ridden, Guardian, of course:

UK approved more chemical exports to Syria than previously revealed

Business secretary says five export licences were approved for chemicals that can be used to make sarin from 2004 to 2010

This is probably why the UK has been kept out of the attack force/bluff.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 11 2013 18:28 utc | 213

@207

Hear, Hear!!

"They are not just coordinated but one and the same thing."

Holy shit!! Really?!!! Why, being an American citizen I've had always had this inkling that - y'know - something might not be right. FINALLY, we have evidence?!! Hallelujah!!!!

It is amazing that some people are able to get out of bed in the morning what with our human propensities to depend upon such shaky/ephemeral constructs such as theories, suppositions and common sense, huh?

But now I finally have evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow so I WON'T cry myself to sleep with worry.

AIPAC = Israel?

Mind = blown.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 11 2013 18:28 utc | 214

Syria: Polish foreign minister takes credit for chemical weapons plan

A Twitter message from Mr Sikorski revealed he was “pleased that Russia has taken up Poland’s suggestion of her role in dismantling Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal”. He added that he had “proposed the ultimatum” to John Kerry, the US secretary of state, after getting the support of the European People’s Party, a grouping in the European parliament, during a meeting on Saturday.

However we will still insist that the Kerry gaffe was not intentional.

Posted by: RT this | Sep 11 2013 18:30 utc | 215

211) Kerry is going to talk to Lavrov in Geneva for several days. That is a lot of time to cover a lot of issues. That won't be just chemical weapons.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 11 2013 18:34 utc | 216

dh (208)

You obviously don't find the philosophical infighting entertaining Mr. P. It's Armageddon or nothing for you I guess.

Indeed. I don't find "philosophical infighting" entertaining when at the same time and related to the issue innocent humans (Syrians) die.
If israelis were dying I'd find it so much more entertaining.

Ceterum censeo israel delendum esse.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Sep 11 2013 18:42 utc | 217

I found the rest of the Ben Caspit quote that Gilad cited, because he only gave the first two lines. Gilad says: Ben Caspit, an experienced political journalist, quoted an Israeli diplomatic source yesterday who attacked the attempts to activate AIPAC, saying:

It is not wise. It is not correct. It is excessive. Israel is too often viewed as a country that drags the US into conflicts and wars. Such a modus operandi should only be employed when we have no choice, and only with regards to a strategic issue that is vital to the very existence of Israel. The fate of the Syrian regime is no such issue. No one really knows whether life in the Middle East after Assad will be better than before, whether the border in the Golan Heights will remain as quiet as before, and what will be the fate of the axis of evil. The conflict in Syria is a war between Hezbollah and Al Qaeda, between Sunni extremists and Shi’ites, between very evil and more evil. Thus it is not really clear who are the good guys there, relatively speaking. Israel’s image has already been tarnished and harmed by AIPAC’s deep involvement in convincing the US administration to invade Iraq, a pointless invasion that caused strategic damage to the entire world. AIPAC must be kept for consensus issues only. As it is, Israel is the object of much criticism, also among liberal US Jews. Nothing would happen if, in this case, we would sit for a moment on the sidelines and allow the Americans to argue privately about the fate of their soldiers. This would only give AIPAC more power (link in original – RB) the next time that it really has to go to battle. The next time, and I’m referring to a possible assault on nuclear facilities in Iran, will be really important, fateful and decisive. It is inappropriate that every time the USAians have doubts about adopting a military course of action or not, Israel should come running and goad them on. This causes greater damage than the possibility that the US would occasionally agree not to take action.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 11 2013 18:54 utc | 218

@217

if israelis were dying I'd find it so much more entertaining."

Unfortunately
Israel's lumpen proles are just as much victims of the never ending holocaust-porn psy-op as any other population.

One could even argue "more so".

What Israel does to it's own kids heads could best be described as "psychological torture"

Posted by: hmm | Sep 11 2013 19:10 utc | 219

Sikorski is married to a female by the name of Annie Appelbaum.
Fun Fact, no?

Posted by: hmm | Sep 11 2013 19:12 utc | 220

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/9/11/chomsky_instead_of_illegal_threat_to

Chomsky critical of Israel. Critical enough to suit Mr. Sorrentine? Probably not.

I would like to add that unless I am mistaken Mr. Sorrentine included another commentor's suggestion that Putin had already delivered certain weapons to Syria as Zionist propaganda. If I got it wrong, I'm sorry. On this particular issue, www.syrianperspective.blogspot.com, no fan of Zionism and pro-Assad has also made the same claim.

Posted by: amspirnational | Sep 11 2013 22:30 utc | 221

@221

Chomsky is and has been critical of Israel...to a point. I'm glad you included the transcript of his interview because it completely exemplifies how Chomsky is a gatekeeper propagandist.

In this interview, Chomsky's seemingly in-depth and broad knowledge of America's history in regards to illegal invasions/coups/war crime - the whole nine yards - is once again on display. Given the chance he can rattle off nearly every crime and illegal act the US government has played a part in - that's is his calling card as an intellectual "lion" of the left.

Now here's where the problem lies. So, I'm to believe that a man who can rattle off by rote detail after detail after detail after detail of America's long-term plans at hegemony concerning the rest of the world - all of the illegalities, the lies, the war crimes, etc. - I'm to believe that it is sensible/logical/reasonable for this same man to 1) dismiss and castigate those who believe the attacks on 9/11 were false flag attacks meant to catalyze - as mentioned in PNAC, etc - America's overt war for global domination and 2) that Israel - a country he can also rattle off criminal litanies against - is NOT pursuing - like the US he mentions in the interview - a long term goal of subjugation of the neighboring Arab states through a planned policy of balkanization - also which have been well-documented?

How can this be? How can this supposedly great scientific mind look at the historical data - that he is familiar enough with to rattle off - and come to conclusions that not only defy scientific and documentary evidence but also cut against the grain of the criminal litanies he rattles off?

Oh, even though America has utilized false flags and contrived causus belli throughout its history for any one to even think that 9/11 might ALSO be a false flag - why, that's just crazy!

Similarly, Israel has used every pretext in the book to steal more land and destabilize neighboring regimes - over and over again - yet NC believes that in this Syria business Israel is just having fun observing?!! Really?!!!

The glaring tell is that NC will go 99.99% of the way there but WILL NOT go the extra .01% b/c - because why?

Gatekeeper Chomsky is on full display when he also talks about 9/11 on another separate interview which I will speak to in another post.

No, I don't think I that was me regarding Putin and Syria. Sorry.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 11 2013 23:29 utc | 222

In this interview also from today both of the points I make about Gatekeeper Chomsky are again prominently on display.

Here's his answer when directly asked about the US 9/11 by Goodman:

GOODMAN: If I could interrupt for a minute to ask you about your reflections on this anniversary of the September 11th, 2001, attacks here in the United States? Your reflections on this anniversary, and also how it relates to Syria and the Middle East, and what needs to be done now?

NOAM CHOMSKY: I will respond to that, though I—my own view is that we should be concentrating on the first 9/11, the one in Chile, which was a much worse attack, by any dimension. But the one here was very significant. It was a major terrorist act, thousands of people killed. It’s the first time since the War of 1812 that U.S. territory had been attacked. The United States has had remarkable security, and this, therefore, was—aside from the horrible atrocity—a very significant, historical event. And it changed attitudes and policies in the United States quite considerably. In reaction to this, the government was able to ram through laws, PATRIOT Act, others, that sharply constrained civil liberties. It was able to provide pretext for invasion of Afghanistan, invasion of Iraq, destruction of Iraq. The consequences have spread through the region. And it provides—it’s the basis for Obama’s massive terrorist war, the drone wars, the most extreme terrorist campaign that’s underway now, maybe most extreme in history. And the justification for it is the same: the second 9/11, 9/11/2001. So, yes, it’s had enormous effects on the society, on its—on attitudes, on policies. Many victims throughout the world can testify to that. 

So, this learned man somehow thinks that the Chilean 9/11 is more significant than the US 9/11 - which besides all of the events that defied physics which occurred, impossible story-lines, etc - saw two full-scale illegal wars launched, the immediate destruction of the US Constitution in the PATRIOT act, the active and unrepentant commission of torture, indefinite detention and a host of other war crimes and all of the military/police actions that have stemmed from said destruction/instability and which ARE ALL STILL GOING ON 12 YEARS LATER, this man's downplaying of the event is too incredible to be believed. Really.

We should be concentrating on the Chilean 9/11 when we are about to invade/destroy/overthrow our - what? - 4th? 5th? Muslim country in 12 years? all directly b/c of the narrative set into play on the US 9/11?!!

In the next answer he addresses Syria and again offers the EXACT same non-sense he trotted out yesterday:

AMY GOODMAN: How do you see the situation in Syria being resolved? And now, can you tie it in to the larger Middle East crisis? Talk about Israel-Palestine. Talk about the U.S. relationship with Iran and relationship with Saudi Arabia. 

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, Syria right now is plunging into suicide. If the negotiations options that Lakhdar Brahimi and Russia and others have been pressing, if that doesn’t work, Syria is moving towards a kind of very bloody partition. It’s likely that the Kurdish areas, which already are semi-independent, will move towards further independence, probably link up with Iraqi Kurdistan, adjacent to them, maybe make some arrangements with Turkey—those are already in process—and the rest of Syria, what remains, will be divided between a bloody, murderous Assad regime and a collection of rebel groups of varying kinds, ranging from secular democratic to murderous, brutal terrorists. That looks like the outcome for Syria.

Syria's committing SUICIDE?!!! How the f8ck could someone supposedly as learned as NC say that?!!! How?

Also, he again trots out the partition card without ANY MENTION that the partitioning of Syria and the other states neighboring Israel has been DOCUMENTED as an Israeli strategy for decades.

In this assertion, he's repeating his nonsense from yesterday that Israel is just a passive observer in this whole mess and if - oops - Syria happens to be partitioned - well, gee shucks - it's just one big coincidence that Israel had always dreamed about such a thing.

Noam Chomsky is a gatekeeping fraud. Period.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 11 2013 23:51 utc | 223

For a much more insightful read on 9/11 instead of Chomksy's slop, try this:

If 60 years is the time that must pass before Washington’s crimes can be acknowledged, the US government will admit the truth about September 11, 2001 on September 11, 2061. In 2013, on this 12th anniversary of 9/11, we only have 48 years to go before Washington admits the truth. Alas, the members of the 9/11 truth movement will not still be alive to receive their vindication.

But just as it has been known for decades that Washington overthrew Mossadeq, we already know that the official story of 9/11 is hogwash.

No evidence exists that supports the government’s 9/11 story. The 9/11 Commission was a political gathering run by a neoconservative White House operative. The Commission members sat and listened to the government’s story and wrote it down. No investigation of any kind was made. One member of the Commission resigned, saying that the fix was in. After the report was published, both co-chairmen of the Commission and the legal counsel wrote books disassociating themselves from the report. The 9/11 Commission was “set up to fail,” they wrote.

NIST’s account of the structural failure of the twin towers is a computer simulation based on assumptions chosen to produce the result. NIST refuses to release its make-believe explanation for expert scrutiny. The reason is obvious. NIST’s explanation of the structural failure of the towers cannot survive scrutiny.

There are many 9/11 Truth organizations whose members are high-rise architects, structural engineers, physicists, chemists and nano-chemists, military and civilian airline pilots, firemen and first responders, former prominent government officials, and 9/11 families. The evidence they have amassed overwhelms the feeble official account.

It has been proven conclusively that World Trade Center Building 7 fell at free fall which can only be achieved by controlled demolition that removes all resistance below to debris falling from above so that no time is lost in overcoming resistance from intact structures. NIST has acknowledged this fact, but has not changed its story.

In other words, still in America today official denial takes precedence over science and known undisputed facts.

On this 12th anniversary of a false flag event, it is unnecessary for me to report the voluminous evidence that conclusively proves that the official story is a lie. You can read it for yourself. It is available online. You can read what the architects and engineers have to say. You can read the scientists’ reports. You can hear from the first responders who were in the WTC towers. You can read the pilots who say that the maneuvers associated with the airliner that allegedly hit the Pentagon are beyond their skills and most certainly were not performed by inexperienced pilots.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 12 2013 0:03 utc | 224

You make some good points but how about this?

"There is another part of Syria which is not talked about. It’s occupied by Israel and annexed by Israel. It’s the Golan Heights, annexed in violation of explicit Security Council orders not to annex it. Their credibility doesn’t matter, because Israel is an ally. So that’s another part of Syria.

That brings us to Israel-Palestine. Just a couple of days ago, Secretary Kerry, Secretary of State Kerry, appealed to the European Union to continue to support illegal, criminal Israeli settlement projects in the West Bank—wasn’t put in those words, but the way it was put is that Europe had taken the quite appropriate step of trying to draw back from support for Israeli operations in the illegal settlements—incidentally, that the settlements are illegal is not even in question. That’s been determined by the highest authorities—the Security Council of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice. In fact, up until the Reagan administration, the U.S. also called them illegal. Reagan changed that to "an obstacle to peace," and Obama has weakened it still further to "not helpful to peace." But the U.S. is virtually alone in this. The rest of the world accepts the judgment of the Security Council, the International Court of Justice, that the settlements are illegal, not just the expansion of the settlements but the settlements themselves. And Europe had pulled back from support for the settlements, and Kerry called on Europe not to do that, because the pretext was that this would interfere with the so-called peace negotiations that he’s set up, which are a total farce. I mean, the peace negotiations are carried out under preconditions, U.S.-imposed preconditions, which virtually guarantee failure. There are two basic preconditions. One—

AMY GOODMAN: We have 15 seconds. 

NOAM CHOMSKY: Pardon? 

AMY GOODMAN: We have 15 seconds. 

NOAM CHOMSKY: Oh, OK. One precondition is that the U.S. run them. The U.S. is a participant, not neutral. The other is that Israeli expansion of settlements must continue. No peace negotiations can continue under those conditions."

This does not deal with and condemn Zionist territorial expansion?

Chomsky has admitted-and to me it is a glaring weakness, but I appreciate the admisssion-that he went
easier on Israel than he should have early on due to family considerations.
He has also conceded recently he had underestimated the ethnic factor in the motivations of the Zionist Lobby and its power position in the American ruling class.

Petras and Finklestein had a debate about this, and I clearly favored Petras' arguments with his
former pupil who took the pure Chomskyite line at the time (shortly before Chomsky's revisions on the subject.)

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Apr07/Borer-Petras-Finkelstein17.htm

In the Democracy Now, I found his characterization of the Assad regieme most offensive and I wish he had been asked about the Saudi-US-Israeli alliance against it and its helping the rebels.

Chomsky has said that ultimately the area officially ruled by rabbinical law and called Israel now should NOT be ruled by rabbinical law but democratically with equal rights for Palestinians across the board. This qualifies him as a political anti-Zionist.

I do not consider belief in or rejection of MIHIP, LIHOP or criminal negligence and blowback from
immoral imperial intervention (the Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich view) pivotal in judging these issues.

Posted by: amspirnational | Sep 12 2013 0:28 utc | 225

You make some good points but how about this?

"There is another part of Syria which is not talked about. It’s occupied by Israel and annexed by Israel. It’s the Golan Heights, annexed in violation of explicit Security Council orders not to annex it. Their credibility doesn’t matter, because Israel is an ally. So that’s another part of Syria.

That brings us to Israel-Palestine. Just a couple of days ago, Secretary Kerry, Secretary of State Kerry, appealed to the European Union to continue to support illegal, criminal Israeli settlement projects in the West Bank—wasn’t put in those words, but the way it was put is that Europe had taken the quite appropriate step of trying to draw back from support for Israeli operations in the illegal settlements—incidentally, that the settlements are illegal is not even in question. That’s been determined by the highest authorities—the Security Council of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice. In fact, up until the Reagan administration, the U.S. also called them illegal. Reagan changed that to "an obstacle to peace," and Obama has weakened it still further to "not helpful to peace." But the U.S. is virtually alone in this. The rest of the world accepts the judgment of the Security Council, the International Court of Justice, that the settlements are illegal, not just the expansion of the settlements but the settlements themselves. And Europe had pulled back from support for the settlements, and Kerry called on Europe not to do that, because the pretext was that this would interfere with the so-called peace negotiations that he’s set up, which are a total farce. I mean, the peace negotiations are carried out under preconditions, U.S.-imposed preconditions, which virtually guarantee failure. There are two basic preconditions. One—

AMY GOODMAN: We have 15 seconds. 

NOAM CHOMSKY: Pardon? 

AMY GOODMAN: We have 15 seconds. 

NOAM CHOMSKY: Oh, OK. One precondition is that the U.S. run them. The U.S. is a participant, not neutral. The other is that Israeli expansion of settlements must continue. No peace negotiations can continue under those conditions."

This does not deal with and condemn Zionist territorial expansion?

Chomsky has admitted-and to me it is a glaring weakness, but I appreciate the admisssion-that he went
easier on Israel than he should have early on due to family considerations.
He has also conceded recently he had underestimated the ethnic factor in the motivations of the Zionist Lobby and its power position in the American ruling class.

Petras and Finklestein had a debate about this, and I clearly favored Petras' arguments with his
former pupil who took the pure Chomskyite line at the time (shortly before Chomsky's revisions on the subject.)

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Apr07/Borer-Petras-Finkelstein17.htm

In the Democracy Now, I found his characterization of the Assad regieme most offensive and I wish he had been asked about the Saudi-US-Israeli alliance against it and its helping the rebels.

Chomsky has said that ultimately the area officially ruled by rabbinical law and called Israel now should NOT be ruled by rabbinical law but democratically with equal rights for Palestinians across the board. This qualifies him as a political anti-Zionist.

I do not consider belief in or rejection of MIHIP, LIHOP or criminal negligence and blowback from
immoral imperial intervention (the Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich view) pivotal in judging these issues.

Posted by: amspirnational | Sep 12 2013 0:28 utc | 226

@226

Everyone's stance on 9/11 has everything to do with his/her integrity. Sorry.

I'm done splitting hairs about who's a Zionist and who's not.

Gatekeeping is a purposeful diverting of conversation away from certain topics and this is what Chomsky is glaringly doing through omission.

By continuing to wallow in the details ad infinitum Chomsky sets himself up as erudite at the same time allowing himself to not "see" the bigger picture and ask questions based upon the history he is so seemingly fluent in.

For example, how about the existence of Israel in toto? Not just in Golan or the WB or in Gaza but questions such as given the illegality of Israel's actions throughout its entire existence - like the US which NC so lovingly chastises at every opportunity - what should the world think about the existence of Israel? Are people wrong to think that the existence/creation of Israel is/was a mistake? Is the Arab world largely CORRECT in their assessment of Israel?

NC always loves to call the US a rogue/pariah state and that nearly every move it makes is illegal in some regard. This kind of talk is meant to prompt thinking and discussion along the lines of "Gee, what does the existence of the US really mean?" "Why should I support ANYTHING the US government does?" "I should probably see a nefarious motive in most EVERYTHING the US does, huh?" etc etc.

But we will never get that from NC on Israel. The litany of Israeli crime after Israeli crime after Israeli crime won't come because he is diverting people away from such questions. Instead we hear patent nonsense, for example, on how the Israelis are just sitting this Syria thing out laughing to each other on the beach. That Syria's committing suicide.

Yeah, just like how the US leaders were was also just "lucky" during the Soviet/Afghan quagmire (or any number of cases NC can rattle off), huh? Like how Iran, Chile, etc etc "committed suicided" oh so many years ago, huh?

Criticizing Israeli settlements, calling the US a rogue state, those topics are well within the respectable confines of discourse of which NC is a gatekeeper. Within those confines you're free to wow the wide-eyed progressives with any little bit of knowledge you might have, whatever "shocking" opinion you might state.

But you don't cross certain lines either b/c 1) you've decided that the repercussions of said conversations might be just too much - for a number of reasons - so you self-censor or 2) someone's made it clear to you - in a number of ways - that certain things are not to be spoken of.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 12 2013 1:16 utc | 227

I agree with JSorrentine wrt Chomsky... he will go just so far...

In the interview above with Amy G. he was apparently about to go past her threshold too, and she was telling him he had only 15 seconds.

Several folks have told me she too is a gatekeeper... do you agree?

Posted by: crone | Sep 12 2013 3:44 utc | 228

chomsky has become and has been serving as a weapon and he basically is a fraud having brought up with and since then always been living the concept of surface and inside. One can observe this not only in his life, always paying great attention to keep his private life (in a rather broad sense) hidden, but also in his "research" and teachings where one will always find an inner part and a surface part.
About the only exception where chomsky, albeit in a nonchalant intellectual way, is honest and mentions something private is him declaring to be an atheist (he could, of course, not but show intellectualizing that statement).

While developing brillant or at least celebrated a brillant linguistic theories chomsky consistently failed to get at the the soul of anything, not matter whether language or politics; he always kept stuck with no matter how impressive looking and complex mechanisms.

It is not suprising but to be expected from chomsky to ostentatively produce an impressive looking complex surface mechanism layer on zusa and israel, too. As is to be expected that he hides the core of the matter.

It must be a culturally and intellectual poor country that proudly presents him as one of its preeminent intellectuals. chomsky has been living a big lie in a country that enacts a big lie and protects - or rather obeys to - the only country that is based on and is an even bigger lie.

I don't care what that chomsky says or says not.

Ceterum censeo israel delendum esse.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Sep 12 2013 5:57 utc | 229

229) Mr. P. I haven't noticed you revealing anything private about your inner part.

Though you do remind me of my Nazi Latin teacher. Maybe that is where you are honest and show something private.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 12 2013 6:05 utc | 230

zomebody

Are you my student, possibly since years? Has your future in a solid part been unthrusted to me? I don't think so.
And btw, are you intellectually really so sadly poor to think that attacking me could possibly somehow save chomskys image?

Furthermore: *of course* you have to go against anyone who dismounts chomsky the weaponized fraud, in particular if you perceive the enemy being a Nazi (an accusation I can comfortably live with, knowing it comes from you) and, of course, you fail measly.

Stop molesting me with your zionist fighting attempts.

Ceterum censeo israel delendum esse.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Sep 12 2013 6:20 utc | 231

I just used your own technique against your argument.

So I am correct, you are a Latin teacher? Don't you feel like a Chihuahau barking at a Dane?

Posted by: somebody | Sep 12 2013 6:32 utc | 232

I have a good example of open & shut lying from Chomsky:

Chomsky Interview (extract)
Torture Magazine, Dec 14 2012

I doubt very much that Russia and China had anything to do with the lack of US or Western military intervention in Syria. In fact, my strong suspicion is that the US, UK and France welcomed the Russian veto because that gave them a pretext not to do anything. Now they can say, “How can we do anything? The Russians and the Chinese have vetoed it!” In fact, if they wanted to intervene, they wouldn’t have cared one way or the other about a Russian or Chinese veto. That’s perfectly obvious from history, but they didn’t want to intervene and they don’t want to intervene now. The military and intelligence strategic command centers are just strongly opposed to it. Some oppose it for technical, military reasons and others because they don’t see anyone they can support in their interests. They don’t particularly like Assad, although he was more or less conformed to USraeli interests, but they don’t like the opposition either, especially their Islamist elements, so they just prefer to stay on the sidelines. It’s kind of interesting that Israel doesn’t do anything. They wouldn’t have to do much. Israel could easily mobilize forces in the Golan Heights. They could mobilize forces there, which are only about 40 miles from Damascus, which would compel Assad to send military forces to the border, drawing them away from areas where the rebels are operating. So that would be direct support for the rebels, but without firing a shot and without moving across the border. But there is no talk of it and I think what that indicates is that USrael and their allies just don’t want to take moves that will undermine the regime, just out of self-interest.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 12 2013 8:03 utc | 233

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 11, 2013 8:03:58 PM | 224

Wow - a Trufer?
Let me guess ... it's pure coincidence that you established an identity here a few weeks before a 911 anniversary in order to start an aimless, fingers-in-ears non-debate?
Please don't.
I'm tired of Trufers parading their lack of education and knowledge of the mathematical sciences as a badge of honour. Trufe's lists are notable only for the overwhelming preponderance of irrelevant and unqualified ring-ins and rope-a-dopes.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 12 2013 10:03 utc | 234

Hoarsewhisperer

Please, kindly explain the term "Trufer" (I've never heard it).

Thanks.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Sep 12 2013 10:45 utc | 235

@235
Mr. P - I think he means truther in connection with the 911 truth movement, or?

Posted by: Karin | Sep 12 2013 10:50 utc | 236

Karin

Thanks, you might be right but I feel it's better to have Hoarsewhisperer himself explain what he means to avoid misunderstandings.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Sep 12 2013 11:15 utc | 237

I don't keep tabs on "who" establishes identities here, or give a shit about who is behind "identities". But apparently some do.

OK - Mr Educated "Hoarsewhisperer" (whatever the f that puerile sounding tag is supposed to mean) – why don’t you refute arguments from “JSorrentine” instead of resorting to juvenile ad-hominem attacks on a pseudonym.

‘Trufers’ – what are you – some tough nut Cockney?

I see you name around here quite a bit, so you obviously have plenty of fucking time on your hands. Dazzle us with your education and acumen. Tell us all about the Mathematical Sciences.

Posted by: DM | Sep 12 2013 11:29 utc | 238

@238

"Dazzle us with your education and acumen. Tell us all about the Mathematical Sciences."

Yeah, I'd like to see that too

Posted by: hmm | Sep 12 2013 12:07 utc | 239

Hey "somebody". Now why would you have had a "Nazi Latin teacher"?

No, don't answer that. I don't really care if you went to school in Germany 85 years ago, and I certainly don't want you revealing any disgusting private inner parts.

Posted by: DM | Sep 12 2013 12:25 utc | 240

a Chihuahau barking at a Dane?

must be nice living in "Back-to-Front MirrorLand"

Posted by: hmm | Sep 12 2013 12:33 utc | 241

actually they did survive well into the early 1990's

consider this timeline

born 1925
fully indoctrinated at school from 1935 to 1943 (formative years), passed early "Abitur" (war) became an officer very fast because of education and few people left - spent the most exciting years of his life
survived in a US POW camp, learnt English
studied from 1948 onwards, found a solution in the catholic church therefore Latin
became a teacher in the 1950's
was a pensioner (65) in 1990

Posted by: somebody | Sep 12 2013 13:02 utc | 242

242 was the answer to 240

Posted by: somebody | Sep 12 2013 13:05 utc | 243

Mr P does not appear at all German, not even slightly

btw, you look a hella lot more fake than anyone else here.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 12 2013 13:10 utc | 244

Much as I abhor betting on the outcome of dog Fights, And while it's not exactly a Chihuahua, certainly in a one-on-one, several breeds of "Terrier" would certainly have the wherewithal to deal effectively enough with the unwanted slobbering attention of Danes

Posted by: hmm | Sep 12 2013 13:16 utc | 245

I know guys like zomebody or anonymouz. It seems the zionists have their agents whereever any significant level of intelligence, which naturally leads to oppose israel, is to be found.

And they always follow 3 goals:

- disturb and interrupt so as to corrode and disintegrate discussions
- disguise and distract and falsify
- find out as much as possibly about major opponents and attack them

Tough luck. I've spent quite some time in zio forums to learn about the business.
And while most of their cut outs are rather low level and lack the finesse to avoid being recognized as zio assets right away, zomebody and anonymous are particularly untalented specimen.

Frankly, I feel that some of you pay them way more attention that they deserve. Let them blabber, who cares.
Finally, there is a good side to it, too: b can take it as a compliment. MoA must hurt them to send those guys albeit their effectiveness is that of a boy throwing peas at a grizzly.

Ceterum censeo israel delendum esse.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Sep 12 2013 13:25 utc | 246

@234

Trufer? Holy shit, I thought that one when out with Seinfeld reruns and Zubaz. You must be European.

No soup for you!!!

Anyways, I would also like how you use the "mathematical sciences" to prove to all us here how 9/11 could have conceivable happened as the official fairy tale tells us it did.

Because most rational people - even the "trufers" - seriously, you don't blush when you type that word? yikes - think that it's nearly a mathematical impossibility that those plucky 19 hijackers could have gotten so gosh darn lucky over and over and over again on that day given what they needed to happen to pull it all off.

Well, we're waiting...dazzle us 2003-style!!!

Should I put on some early Radiohead or something to get us in the mood?

Trufer? Really?

Lastly, I also like how you so elegantly employ the same conspiratorial bent that - in your book - "trufers" would use in accusing me of being a "trufer" but don't let that irony make you feel like an idiot or anything.

Again, we're waiting...

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 12 2013 15:32 utc | 247

I might be wrong but I believe he accepts some aspects of what informally is called LIHOP, but rejects MIHOP and its demolition
analyses. Anyway, truthers have myriad in-fighting among themselves, and I might say, neither Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich lack integrity.
Further, one can emphasize "A Clean Break's" outing of Zionist strategy without accepting MIHOP.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/16/opinion/mideast-talks-noam-chomsky/index.html

I believe Chomsky is banned from Israel. Does he say often enough that Israel should eventually be a pure democracy with no
rabbinical law? Possibly not. Does he misanalyse key aspects of ongoing events? Almost certainly. Is he some kind of effective
diverter from truth who has kept otherwise effective anti-Zionists from performing important tasks by way of freeing Palestine?
Very probably not.

Posted by: amspirnational | Sep 12 2013 22:32 utc | 248

Re: JSorrentine | Sep 12, 2013 11:32:19 AM | 247

And Holy shit to you too, JS.
I enjoyed the fact-free wise(?)cracks and "dazzle us 2003-style."
But the thing I liked best was your reluctance/inability to refute my 'unqualified ring-ins and rope-a-dopes' allegation using Trufe's voluminous but vacuous and rhetorical "resources."
Predictable? Much?
Don't think of this as an ambush. Think of it as a learning curve.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 13 2013 7:09 utc | 249

I am sorry, Horsewhisperer,

to see that you prefer to run a personal attack on someone rather than, to at least too, answer my question ("What is that -> 'trufer'?").
Btw. my question was honest; I simply never heard that word.

It might be helpful to perceive MoA as an exchange, a discussion, a debate at times - but not as a war.

Friendly greetings

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Sep 13 2013 7:18 utc | 250

@249

Jeez, that was pathetic.

What a total let down. I was hoping for something even halfway intelligent, but what we got instead was that crap

Posted by: hmm | Sep 13 2013 8:28 utc | 251

I thought you were kidding, Mr P. So I'm sorry too.

Trufer is a crude way of hilighting edu-phobic ignorance. It was coined by a 911 debunking site which pointed out that few, if any, of 911Truth's disciples know anything at all about structural engineering, building construction, building materials, building design, physics or aviation, and they don't want to know. It sounded a bit far-fetched but a few visits to 911Truth confirmed it.

"Our job isn't to prove anything. It's to question the official story" (and attack and ridicule anyone who disagrees). I've lost count of the number of 911 'debates' in which the Trufers were utterly clueless on technical know-how but it didn't prevent them from bagging people who know what they're talking about.

Btw, Mr P, imo a personal attack is about calling people names - not pointing out perceived flaws in their position. A perceived flaw can be clarified. Name-calling is crystal clear from the outset.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 13 2013 9:12 utc | 252

Posted by: hmm | Sep 13, 2013 4:28:12 AM | 251

Tell someone who cares...

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 13 2013 9:22 utc | 253

Hoarsewhisperer (252)

So, if I get that right, "trufer" is a (somewhat derogatory or at least quite critical) word for those who doubt (theofficial version of) 9/11 - and - do so in more or less ignoring (or simply not knowing) scientific and engineering facts.

Thanks for the answer, and yes, my question was honest and simply looking to understand what you wrote.

I'm somewhat bewildered to hear what you say though (although it might be true for some) as, from what I know, the common understanding is that the official version is absurd and contradicting pretty everything that is known in physics, engineering, architecture aso.

Ceterum censeo israel delendum esse.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Sep 13 2013 9:42 utc | 254

@254

He promised to get all matematikal and metaphysikal on you trufers and all we got was "But the thing I liked best was your reluctance/inability to refute my 'unqualified ring-ins and rope-a-dopes' allegation using Trufe's voluminous but vacuous and rhetorical "resources."

Which, whatever it was, contained little to recommend it to the realm of the matematikal nor the metaphysikal

Posted by: hmm | Sep 13 2013 9:50 utc | 255

hmm (255)

I understand Horsewhisperers post as responding to my question - and that he did.

Like you I do not agree with his point of view but that's another issue he will possibly take up in another post.
It would strike me as unfair to attack him for answering what I asked him. After all, Horsewhisperer is free like everyone to take on a discussion (or fight) or not to.

I've read Horsewhisperer for quite some time now and while I sometimes disagree with his views and opinions, I never had reason to perceive him as malevolent or aggressive, although he seems a little itchy in the last days; that, however, may have many reason (ill child, too much work, ...) and I'm not ready to hold that against him easily.

Also, that whole 9/11 and truther issue is a loaded one and neither side seems ready for a compromise. Sure enough driving up the emotional level won't help either.

Friendly greetings to everyone

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Sep 13 2013 10:15 utc | 256

I'm merely pointing the difference between what he promised, and what he delivered

t'were neither "Matimatickal" nor "scyentifickal"

Posted by: hmm | Sep 13 2013 10:39 utc | 257

hmm

Oh, that (my post) wasn't an attack on you neither.

Let's see if and what he'll deliver. But we should also accept his right to not deliver any more - as well as he must accept the reaction on whatever he decides to do.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Sep 13 2013 10:48 utc | 258

So, if I understand you, you're saying not to expect an imminent outbreak of the "mathematical sciences" just because someone is floating around out there loudly threatening to release a barrage of said "mathematical sciences"?

Sounds like good advice, tbh

Posted by: hmm | Sep 13 2013 11:34 utc | 259

I'm saying that there have been (at least) 2 different questions around, one being my question what a "trufer" is and the other one being how Horsewhisperer could possibly explain his in my minds eye, too, uhm, weird statements.

He did answer my question. And I'm not willing to turn this against him in any way.
He did not answer the other question so far. Which everyone is free is free to interpret in any way he sees fit. The same goes for a potentially forthcoming answer by Horswhisperer.

My personal take, which may be wrong, is that Horswhisperer has come to see for himself that his position is, uhm, not well tenable nor consistent with etsablished sound reasoning and that now he prefers to just not follow it up.

Whatever. It's not reason enough (for me) to go against someone who so far has shown to be a MoA user with by far mor merits than failures.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Sep 13 2013 12:05 utc | 260

like i said

"Good Advice"

Posted by: hmm | Sep 13 2013 12:18 utc | 261

my 259 was more of a "meta" thing tbh

Posted by: hmm | Sep 13 2013 12:20 utc | 262

my 259 was more of a "meta" thing tbh

Posted by: hmm | Sep 13 2013 12:20 utc | 263

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/09/13/the-people-against-the-800-pound-gorilla/

It would be interesting to get Chomsky's reaction to this piece.

Posted by: amspirnational | Sep 13 2013 20:42 utc | 264

I believe his chief concern involved NORAD's failures.

Now let me say this. It is true that hardcore MIHOPs dweride dissenters as those who accept The (Government's) Official Story.

If you believe in LIHOP, you do not accept The Official Story.
If you believe 9/11/2001 represents unpunished criminal negligence, you do not believe in The Official Story.
If you believe the attacks were revenge for an immoral anti-Arab, anti-Islam, pro-Zionist policy of intervention
for the past decades, you do not accept The Official Story.

Posted by: amspirnational | Sep 13 2013 20:50 utc | 265

I still have a doubt when OPCW has made its involvement but after such a great disaster.

and hope fully why does OPCW support Citizens of State Party but not the others in its grants.

Posted by: bin abbas | Sep 24 2013 13:16 utc | 266