Skip to content or view mobile version

Home | Mobile | Editorial | Mission | Privacy | About | Contact | Help | Security | Support

A network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues.

Noam Chomsky and the willful ignorance of 9/11

Kevin Ryan | 30.11.2013 09:27 | Afghanistan | Anti-militarism | Social Struggles | World

In response to a question at the University of Florida recently, Noam Chomsky claimed that there were only “a miniscule number of architects and engineers” who felt that the official account of WTC Building 7 should be treated with skepticism. Chomsky followed-up by saying, “a tiny number—a couple of them—are perfectly serious.”

If signing your name and credentials to a public petition on the subject means being serious, then Noam Chomsky’s tiny number begins at 2,100, not counting scientists and other professionals. Why would Chomsky make such an obvious exaggeration when he has been presented with contradictory facts many times?


Noam Chomsky and the willful ignorance of 9/11

by Kevin Ryan, Dig Within, 29 November 2013

In response to a question at the University of Florida recently, Noam Chomsky claimed that there were only “a miniscule number of architects and engineers” who felt that the official account of WTC Building 7 should be treated with skepticism. Chomsky followed-up by saying, “a tiny number—a couple of them—are perfectly serious.”

If signing your name and credentials to a public petition on the subject means being serious, then Noam Chomsky’s tiny number begins at 2,100, not counting scientists and other professionals. Why would Chomsky make such an obvious exaggeration when he has been presented with contradictory facts many times?

I’ve personally had over thirty email exchanges with Chomsky. In those exchanges, he has agreed that it is “conceivable” that explosives might have been used at the WTC. But, he wrote, if that were the case it would have had to be Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden who had made it so.

Of course, it doesn’t matter how many professionals or intellectuals are willing to to admit it. The facts remain that the U.S. government’s account for the destruction of the WTC on 9/11 is purely false. There is no science behind the government’s explanation for WTC7 or for the Twin Towers and everyone, including the government, admits that WTC Building 7 experienced free fall on 9/11. There is no explanation for that other than the use of explosives.

The obviously bogus “tiny number” statement from Chomsky is only one of several such absurdities the man uttered in his lecture response. Here are a few of the others.

“[Scientists seeking the truth about 9/11] are not doing what scientists and engineers do when they think they’ve discovered something. What you do, when you think you have discovered something, is you write articles in scientific journals [he admits to “one or two minor articles”], give talks at the professional societies, and go to the Civil Engineering Department at MIT, or Florida or wherever you are, and present your results.”

I’ve copied Chomsky on more than two peer-reviewed scientific articles in mainstream journals that describe evidence for demolition at the WTC. Therefore he knows that this statement is not true. And I’ve given dozens of talks around the U.S. and Canada that focused on the WTC demolition theory, many of which were at universities.

I’ve also pointed out that MIT’s civil engineering professor Eduardo Kausel made elementary mistakes in his public comments about the WTC disaster. Kausel claimed in Scientific American that the WTC towers were “never designed for the the intense jet fuel fires—a key design omission.” Kausel also claimed that jet fuel from the aircraft “softened or melted the structural elements—floor trusses and columns—so that they became like chewing gum.” At the risk of making a Chomsky-like exaggeration, I’ll venture that nearly everyone today knows that these statements are false.

Chomsky went on in an attempt to belittle, and downplay the sacrifices of, people seeking the truth.

“There happen to be a lot of people around who spent an hour on the internet who think they know a lot of physics but it doesn’t work like that.”

“Anyone who has any record of, any familiarity, with political activism knows that this is one of the safest things you can do. It’s almost riskless. People take risks far beyond this constantly, including scientists and engineers. I could, have run through, and can run through many examples. Maybe people will laugh at you but that’s about it. It’s almost a riskless position.”

Chomsky knows that I was fired from my job as Site Manager at Underwriters Laboratories for publicly challenging the government’s investigation into the WTC tragedy. He knows that many others have suffered similar responses as well, including Brigham Young University physicist Steven Jones and University of Copenhagen chemist Niels Harrit, who were forced into retirement for speaking out. And although everyone knows that researchers and universities today depend on billions of grant dollars from the government, Chomsky implies that such funding could never be impacted in any way by questioning of the government’s most sensitive political positions.

The “hour on the internet” nonsense is ludicrous, of course, and Chomsky knows it well. Jones and Harrit have better scientific credentials than some MIT professors and we have all spent many years studying the events of 9/11. I’ve spent over a decade, and have contributed to many books and scientific articles, on the subject.

Pandering to the hecklers in the crowd, Chomsky summarized his simplistic (public) position on the events of 9/11.

“However, there’s a much more deeper issue which has been brought up repeatedly and I have yet to hear a response to it. There is just overwhelming evidence that the Bush administration wasn’t involved—very elementary evidence. You don’t have to be a physicist to understand it, you just have to think for a minute. There’s a couple of facts which are uncontroversial:

#1—The Bush Administration desperately wanted to invade Iraq. (He goes on to say that there were good reasons, including that Iraq was “right in the middle if the world’s energy producing region.)

#2—They didn’t blame 9/11 on Iraqis, they blamed it on Saudis—that’s their major ally.

#3—Unless they’re total lunatics, they would have blamed it on Iraqis if they were involved in any way.” He continues to say that “there was no reason to invade Afghanistan” which “has been mostly a waste of time.”

Basically, these three “overwhelming” reasons boil down to one reason—Chomsky assumes that if the Bush Administration was involved it would have immediately blamed Iraq for 9/11. Of course, Bush Administration leaders did immediately blame Iraq for 9/11 and they did so repeatedly. That was one of the two original justifications given by the Bush Administration for invading Iraq.

Moreover, Chomsky most definitely received a response to his “deeper issue” when he received a copy of my new book Another Nineteen several months before his comments. The book gives ample reasons—meaning actual overwhelming evidence—to suspect that Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and nineteen of their colleagues were behind the 9/11 attacks. After writing that he was “glad to learn about the new book,” he sent his mailing address for a free copy. Chomsky acknowledged receiving the book in August and wrote to me that he was “pleased to have a copy of the book, and hope to be able to get to it before too long.”

Therefore, Chomsky has either ignored the response to his one major concern for several months or he knows that his concern is no longer valid. What would make him feign ignorance in such a way? Perhaps it is the fact that he would lose a great deal of face if he were to finally admit that there is much more to the story of 9/11.

Regardless, when a tiny number begins at 2,100 and “just overwhelming evidence” to exonerate the Bush Administration boils down to one bad assumption, we are again reminded of the power that 9/11 holds. When presented with substantial evidence for complicity on the part of corporate and government leaders, the obvious becomes either undeniable or an emotional cue to dissemble.

Kevin Ryan
- e-mail:
- Homepage:


Hide the following 21 comments


30.11.2013 09:30

Folks can scream “conspiracy theory, conspiracy theory” all they want, but I think a time is going to have to come, and soon, when people begin to recognize that there are many more gatekeepers with hidden agendas in the alternative community than we like to admit, and that some of them may be some of the most trusted people in that community, perhaps even people regarded as pillars. Chomsky’s comments should be seen in that light, I think. They clearly aren’t just the obtuse comments of an eminence grise who has lost the plot, bless his heart. No, they are willfully manipulative and dishonest. I think we need to recognize the deeper implications of this, ugly as they are.


Meet Noam Chomsky, Academic Gatekeeper (video)

30.11.2013 09:44


Meet Noam Chomsky, Academic Gatekeeper (video)

by James Corbett, Corbett Report, 28 October 2013

James Corbett

Chomski credability

30.11.2013 12:23

Chomski's position on 9/11 is suspicious. It helps to keep the Left, people who are naturally critical of government and elites, believing in the official narrative.

Currently, mainstream media leaves Chomski alone. But could it be that Chomski feels that if publicly supports the truth movement, he would come under a media smear campaign and his position in the Left would could under threat?


9/11 mystery solved! Islamic terrorists did it!

30.11.2013 13:00

Why does almost everyone on the left think that it would have been impossible for Islamic terrorists to have carried out the 9/11 terrorist attacks? This video explains exactly how Islamic terrorists were able to carry out those attacks:
I certainly find it far easier to believe that muslim terrorists carried it out than the US government, the CIA or Mossad as it would have been extremely hard for them to smuggle and hide hundreds of tons of high explosives into the World Trade Centre buildings without anyone noticing. Also why the hell have Al Qaeda repeatedly admitted carrying out the 9/11 terrorist attacks? You do not claim you carried out a massive terrorist attack that killed thousands of people unless you are either totally mad or you really did it. How Al Qaeda are not saying the opposite? How come the Taliban in Afghanistan did not claim that Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11 as it would have been a defence against the invasion of their country?

Muslim terrorists most likely carried out 9/11.

The Official Story

30.11.2013 13:29

The official story is full of holes.

Arabs, even Saudis may have been involved with 911, there are many traitors in every nation. But if you read even the superficial background stories on these characters, you find that they were all being watched by the CIA, FBI and other US departments.

If 'Al Qaeda' are such enemies of the west, why are they being trained and supplied with weapons by the US and UK governments in Libya and Syria?

Did you hear about 'The Dancing Israelis' ? After they were deported they gave an Israeli TV interview where they admit that "They were there to document the event."

The US government may not have carried out the 911 attacks, but at the very least they allowed known terrorists to carry out their deeds without obstruction.

The US/NATO already had plans to invade the oil rich nations in the middle east. See 'The Project For The New American Century' [PNAC] to start with.

Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. With ever increasing consequences it seems.


The War on Syria and Noam Chomsky

30.11.2013 18:21


The War on Syria and Noam Chomsky

by Ghali Hassan, Axis of Logic, 4 September 2013

"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion, but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.”

[Samuel P. Huntington, 1996, p.51. ]

For centuries, Western imperialism has terrorised the world, using violence to occupy lands and expropriate resources and markets. From Asia and the Middle East to Africa, millions of innocent people, mostly women and children have been killed to satisfy Western appetite for violence and barbarism, and millions more have become displaced and refugees. Enhance by sophisticated false propaganda to manipulate public opinions and justify aggression, Western imperialism led by the U.S. is the greatest menace to the survival of humanity today.

After more than two years of covert war, including economic sanctions on food and medicine, the U.S. and its allies or vassals (France, Britain and Israel in particular) are preparing their armies to wage overt aggressive war on the people of Syria citing the same lie that led to the bloodbath in Iraq, “chemical weapons”. As most people know, the U.S. war on the Iraqi people was one of the most unjust barbaric wars that have ever been inflicted on defenceless nations, a major international crime.

Sadly, the thirst for another bloodbath among Western imperialists is as big as ever. In order to sell the war to the American people and world public, Western leaders invoke the Nazi’s beloved phrase of “humanitarian intervention” as a “moral justification”. It is the same “moral justification” that terrorised the Iraqi people and caused the deaths of more than one-and-a-half million innocent Iraqis, mostly women and children. After more than a decade of murderous military occupation, Iraq –once a progressive nation and an envy of many nations – is a deliberately destroyed cauldron of violence, human misery and deprivation for everyone to see. Instability and violence have gripped Iraq since the murderous invasion. Libya is the same. The West-invented “Humanitarian intervention” is a convenient tool to manipulate public opinions and mask Western violence as a “just war”.

The U.S. and its vassals are accusing (without credible evidence) the Syrian Government of using “chemical weapons against civilians”. The chemical attack in Syria is one of many lies fabricated by the Mossad (the Israeli Gestapo) and fed to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and then spread by the Israeli and Western media. It is a planned and baseless pretext to justify aggression. The current UN team investigating the chemical attack takes its orders from Washington and was instructed by the U.S. to only determine if chemical weapons had been used and not who used them. According to Michael Mandel, a professor of Law at Osgoode Hall Law School of York University in Canada, “because the U.S. promised to intervene militarily if gas were used, giving the [terrorists] who are on the run [chased by the Syrian Army] a huge incentive to use it and giving the Syrian Government an equally huge disincentive”.

According to the Minnesota Mint Press News (29 August 2013), Syrian residents in Ghouta have confirmed that Saudi-armed terrorists were behind the chemical attack on their neighbourhood on the outskirt of the Syrian Capital Damascus. In a detailed report on the use of chemical weapons in Syria by UN commissioner on Syria, Carla Del Ponte stated:

"Our investigators have been interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals. According to their report of last week, which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated. I was a little bit stupefied by the first indications we got ... they were about the use of nerve gas by the opposition."

However, the U.S. dismissed the report and insisted on an “inspection” that covers all Syria. A recent Russian report presented to the UN Security Council, show that the Western-backed terrorists were responsible for the March 2013 chemical attack in Khan al-Assad.

Furthermore, in May 2013, OE Watch reported that Turkish security forces found sarin gas in the homes of suspected Western-backed (al-Nusra terrorists).

The gas was reportedly to be used to make bombs. It is most likely that, Israel, the C.I.A., Saudi Arabia, Britain and France are complicit in supplying the terrorists with chemical weapons in order to justify Western aggression against Syria. In fact U.S. President Obama (indirectly) suggested the use of chemical weapons by drawing a “red line” on their use. That is, if chemical weapons are used, we will go to war. Therefore, the U.S. and Israel have an obvious motive in accusing the Syrian Government of using chemical weapons.

One wonders why when Israel and the U.S. use chemical weapons, including white phosphorus, napalm, cluster bombs, and depleted uranium to murder innocent civilians (in broad daylight), most Western governments and the media turned blind eye. In the 2008/2009 the Israeli fascist regime killed over 1500, innocent civilians, including 400 children in unprovoked attacks on an entirely defenceless and besieged population of the Gaza Concentration Camp in Palestine. Despite world-wide condemnation of the Israeli regime, John Kerry and the mostly Zionist U.S. Congress rushed to praise Israel’s terror and provided Israel with more cash, weapons, including white phosphorous and cluster bombs and diplomatic backing. There were no red lines in Palestine or in Iraq, except those drawn in Palestinians and Iraqis blood. The U.S. and its vassals view war crimes through an imperialist lens of “how this serves our interests”.

Like Iraq and Libya, Syria is targeted on behalf of the fascist state of Israel. The aim is to control the Middle East military by destroying any resistance to Israel's fascist (Zionist) ideology. After the atrocity in Libya, the U.S. and its allies resorted to using proxy terrorists to implement their imperialist agenda. The so-called "rebels" (a common euphemism for Western-backed terrorists in Western media) are a collection of U.S.-Israel backed terrorists and foreign mercenaries. They are openly recruited, trained, armed, and directed by the U.S., Israel, NATO members and U.S. allies, including the disgraceful and corrupt dictators of the Middle East – Jordan, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, etc. (New York Times). In short, they are foot soldiers used to facilitate Western military invasions and the destabilisation of the region. If the so-called “rebels” are truly Muslims fighting for democracy, why are they destroying Syria and terrorising the Syrian people?

True Muslims do not fight on U.S.-Israel’s side against fellow Muslims. However, associating the terrorists with Islam is part of the U.S.-Israel racist campaign to demonise Islam and justify war against Muslims. Like Iraq and Libya, once Syria has been completely destroyed, a group of U.S.-trained expatriates and criminals will be installed as a “government” to legitimise the expropriation of the nation’s land, natural resources and market. The terrorists will be encouraged to fight each other for turf or will be airlifted to soften and prepare the ground of the next target. Just take a look at what is happening in the Middle East. Israel is the biggest and only beneficiary of this “creative chaos” strategy.

The Western-orchestrated “Arab Spring” provides a useful platform not only for anti-Muslim neo-fascist, such as Gilbert Achcard, Bernard-Henry Levy and Fawaz Gerges to promote their hostility to Islam, but also an opportunity for Western apologists to show their loyalty and obsequiousness to Western imperialism. A careful reading of the “Left” liberals’ response to the Western-backed terror in Syria, reveals that the “Left” liberals have display a staggering level of complacency, complicity and outright hostility to the Syrian people. Representatives of the milieu of the “Left” liberals led by the like of Noam Chomsky have lost credibility. Their arguments are part of the standard propaganda talking points that serve Israel-U.S. Zionist ideology. Strikingly, not only the “Left” liberals failed to think about Israel-U.S. Zionist ideology, they made serious efforts to spread Western propaganda that the war on Syria is a “civil war” between Syrians.

Noam Chomsky, the darling of the “Left” and the so-called “arguably the most important intellectual alive today” is leading the propaganda campaign. In recent interviews, Chomsky engaged in what can best be described as, highly misleading imperialist propaganda. On 16 June 2013, Chomsky, told al-akhbar newspaper:

“First of all, Israel was not opposed to Assad. He has been more or less the kind of dictator they wanted. He has done the kind of things they wanted. The U.S. has no opposition to Assad. He was cooperating on intelligence and they did not like everything, but he was pretty satisfactory.” (Al-akhbar English, 16 June 2013).

The same propaganda was repeated on The Republic website:

“Israel has done nothing to indicate that it is trying to bring down the Assad regime. There are growing claims that the West intends to supply the opposition with arms. I believe this is quite misleading. The fact of the matter is, that were the United States and Israel interested in bringing down the Syrian regime there is a whole package of measures they could take before they came to the arms-supply option. All these other options remain available, including, for example, America encouraging Israel to mobilize its forces along the northern border, a move that would not produce any objections from the international community and which would compel the regime to withdraw its forces from a number of frontline positions and relieve the pressure on the opposition. But this has not happened, nor will it, so long as America and Israel remain unwilling to bring down Assad regime. They may not like the regime, but it is nevertheless a regime that is well practiced in accommodating their demands and any unknown alternative might prove worse in this respect. Much better, then, to watch the Syrians fight and destroy each other”.

What a distortion of reality by Chomsky!

Chomsky's distortion of reality is based on a deeply-entrenched Zionist belief, that Israel is innocent of any crimes. To paraphrase Frantz Fanon, Chomsky has shown that he is unable to deal with cognitive dissonance and has worked hard to “protect his core belief, often rationalising, ignoring and even denying anything that doesn’t fit in with the his core belief”. Such false propaganda designed to shield Israel and allows Israelis to believe falsely that they’re innocent bystanders, even victims. The truth is Israel is directly involved in the foreign-backed aggression against Syria. In coordination with the U.S. and the Turkish army, the Israeli army continues its unprovoked aggression against Syria, including the recent missiles attack (05 July 2013) on the port city of Latakia. Iran is thrown in the mix by the “Left” liberals to deflect attention away from Israel. It is Israel, not Iran, which is deeply involved in the war on Syria.

Together, with the U.S., Israel is the major supplier of weapons, including chemical weapons to the terrorists to unleash against the Syrian people. Once the Western-backed terrorists were on the run, chased by the Syrian Army, Israel in coordination with the U.S. and Turkey came to their aid. The latest atrocity is a case in point. Chomsky failed to even mention that since the Western-backed violence erupted in Syria, Israel has been the only state that has openly attacked Syria unprovoked. This is consistent with Chomsky’s support for Israel, as he often said that he is “the biggest supporter of the state of Israel”.

Much of the war on Syria has been planned by pro-Israel Zionist think-tank like the Brookings Institute in the U.S. It is part of Israel’s Zionist ideology to dominate the Middle East by force and remove any resistance to Israel’s Zionist expansion. It is Israel which driving the U.S. to war on Syria. As former Israeli Intelligence Chief, Amos Yaldin told the audience at the Israel Policy Forum in February 2013:

“And this [Syrian] military, which is a huge threat to Israel, is now also weakening and, in a way, disintegrating. We still have risk from Syria – a risk of being an al-Qaeda country, a Somalia-type country – but from military point of view, each one of these is less dangerous than the Syrian regular army.”

In addition, the Israeli army (in coordination with the Turkish army) is on full alert on the border with Syria and coordinating with the terrorists. Furthermore, with the backing of the Israeli army, the terrorists have recently occupied the UN border post in Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. They were subsequently defeated by the Syrian Army and fled into the Israeli-occupied part of the Golan. As a result of the violence, the Austrian UN “peace-keeping” force withdrew from the area. The entire Middle East has been turned into a bloodbath specifically to enhance Israel military dominance and advance Israel’s Zionist-fascist ideology.

In another interview with the Lebanese newspaper the Daily Star (18 June 2013), Chomsky went to great length to portray the U.S.-Israel war on Syria in an ignorant and devious term: “Syria is destroying itself”. He said: “The country is heading toward suicide, it is destroying itself and it is very dangerous.” In Chomsky parlance: It is a civil war between the Syrian people (“Sunni versus Shiite”) and we are not involved. What a crass dishonesty, false propaganda and mind-boggling distortions of reality. Chomsky knows that there is no civil war taking place in Syria. He knows that Syria is under Western-backed terrorist attacks. Chomsky knows very well who the perpetrators of the violence in Syria are and who their backers are. From the outset (March 2011), it has been Western-backed terrorists (not “peaceful demonstrators”) who have been wreaking havoc on Syria and killing civilians who opposed them. Nowhere in Chomsky’s interviews has he acknowledged that the U.S. has been training, financing, and arming the terrorist in for almost two years. He is for a UN-backed war on Syria.

Like many Western propagandists, Chomsky’s aim is to mislead the public that sectarian hate exists among Muslims and that the Syrian people are fighting among themselves. The so-called “sectarian violence” is part of the U.S.-Israel “creative chaos” strategy to fragment and divide the Middle East along ethnic and religious lines. Chomsky fails to even mention that Syria is a pluralistic society and that the overwhelming majority of the Syrian people support President Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian legitimate government. As Russia’s President Vladimir Putin accurately observed:

“The Syrian Government is the best speaker on behalf of the Syrian people and not those liver-eating terrorists”.

Chomsky knows very well that the war in Syria is not between the Syrian people, but between the Syrian legitimate Government and foreign-backed terrorists and criminal mercenaries. It is a well-known fact that what the U.S.and it allies, including Israel and the Gulf dictators call “rebels" are foreign-backed terrorists and mercenaries that include al-Qaeda terrorists. Their crimes ranging from eating human flesh, cutting throats, beheadings, abducting and slaughtering clergymen and scholars, recruiting children, robbing factories and transporting them to Turkey and committing hundreds of terrorists acts. We know now that the U.S. and its allies have been openly training the terrorists and supplying them with weapons and cash.

Even Chomsky’s beloved Zionist newspapers, the despicable New York Times and the Washington Post have acknowledged the U.S. role in financing and arming the terrorists against the legitimate Syrian Government. According to the Wall Street Journal, President Obama’s legal team has warned him that arming the terrorists violates international law. The terrorist were directed by their supporters (“Friends of Syria”) to attack population centres (cities and towns) as primary battle grounds to give the impression that the terrorist attacks are in fact a “civil war” between the Syria people. It is consistent with U.S.-Israel policy of targeting the civilian populations.

It is important to keep in mind that Chomsky is not just a Zionist-propagandist. Chomsky is a global propaganda corporation. His repetitive and cheap propaganda are published by his supporters in the Zionist media and spread around the world. The “Chomsky Cult” is the equivalent of BBC or CNN propaganda. It is true that Chomsky has called the U.S. and Israel “terrorist states that pose the greatest threat to world’s peace”. His empty rhetoric is designed to disguise his main propaganda thesis that, “the U.S. is the greatest and freest country in the world”, and blames the US on Israel's war crimes rather than Israel itself. While Chomsky often criticised U.S. foreign policy, he is not fundamentally against U.S. imperialism. He once described the murderous Occupation of Iraq “incompetence” and suggested “better ways” to do it. With his Zionist leaning, Chomsky’s primary aim is to pacify people and put them to sleep. If he is honest, Chomsky needs to ask himself whose side he is on, a U.S.-Israel led murderous Zionism or a civilised community of diverse nations.

Finally, here in Australia, it is the last week of the election campaign and it is used to promote aggression, regurgitating Obama’s threat against the people of Syria. Meanwhile, the Australian Government – an obedient U.S. lapdog – is celebrating its one month Presidency of the UN Security Council. Australia’s main goal in September will be to please the U.S. regime and unconditionally supports U.S. terror in all its forms and at all costs. As the violence escalates in Syria, Australian immigration officials are busy issuing passports to Australian mercenaries joining the West-backed terror in Syria. According to the Time News, “Australians now make up the largest contingent from any developed nation in the Syrian [foreign terrorist] forces”.

Moreover, Australia’s Foreign Minister, Bob Carr (a carbon copy of his predecessor, the ignorant Alexander Downer) has called for the assassination of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in order to change the Government. Imagine the outrage had it been a Muslim leader calling for the assassination of Kevin Rudd or the ignorant Bob Carr himself. However, most Australians have none of it, if it will not stop a few thousands desperate refugees fleeing imperialism terror and trying to reach Australia by boat.

Speaking at the UN General Assembly in December 1964 in New York, the Cuban revolutionary Ernesto Che Guevara described imperialism as:

“A carnivorous animal that feeds on unarmed peoples. […] That is what distinguishes the imperial ‘white men’”. The only way to defeat this carnivorous animal is by uniting anti-imperialist local and global forces. It is a test of conscience for every Westerner and proof of whether Western civilization is anything more than a facade for brute barbarism."

* Ghali Hassan is an independent researcher and writer living in Australia.


Ghali Hassan
- Homepage:

Chomsky obviosly knows what he's doing

30.11.2013 22:04

Just watched the Huff Post of Chomsky video, here's what I think:

From a self proclaimed Anarchist that's one of the biggest appeals to authority I've witnessed!. "If a scientist makes a discovery they write about it in Proffessional Journals etc etc"

I mean what's to "discover"? Free fall is not disputed, and writing to some Journal stating you've "discovered" Newton's Laws will certainly get you "laughed at"

And his second argument (which he says has never been refuted) paraphrasing

"If Bush wanted an excuse to invade Iraq why not use 9-11?"

Well Noam apart from the fact that a Bush had already invaded Iraq, that Iraq had suffered 10 years of sanctions, a no fly zone, i.e Iraq was already a work in progress everybody in the "free world" knew that Saddam was "evil" particularly for starting to trade his oil for Euros yes evil evil man.

and that

Iraq had absolutely no history of terrorism, that there was not even a sexed up 'intelligence' dossier about Iraqi links to AQ , that Blair advised Bush not to go there (as reported by a Blair aide to the Chilcott inquiry) when Bush mooted the possibility of connecting Saddam to AQ and by association 9-11 in a telephone conversation with WC Blair on 9-13-01, that a huge percentage of the American population actually believed that Saddam had done 9-11 (explain that one Noam) in the lead up to the invasion, that Cheney was desperate to connect Saddam with AQ and even Colin Powell tried to make the connection with "Islamic Fundamentalism" (and by association AQ and 9-11) in his presentation at the UN

Apart from all that Noam the premise of your argument is deeply flawed that is 9-11 wasn't just intended as justification for the invasion of a single "Axis of Evil" country no it started "The War on Terror" a global unending war. 9-11 gives licence for action against any "AQ supporting" country and excuse for the curtailment civil liberties in the Imperial "Home Land".

Obviously Chomsky knows what he's doing - why people applauded when the MC said no more 9-11 questions shows that there were obviously many frightened authoritarian followers in that audience.

fool me twice

911was perpetrated by saudi's with Instead of petty internal why fueds

01.12.2013 04:13

Instead of petty internal why fueds that are reminiscent of monty oythons life of brian, why dont skeptics call for a Proper investigation lead by the ICC& swiss investigators, chomsky & billions would support that if we do it together.

Brian Blessed

911seems committed by saudi's&insiders, petty fueds dont help,investigate

01.12.2013 04:41

Not suprising chomsky stays so far away with so many crazy theories given out by some, Lets just demand the facts& call support for a Proper investigation

Brian Blessed

01.12.2013 05:12 based at passing clouds,club, dalston as was organisational for bilderberg frontem festival-demonstration 2013. also a płace where your likely to find more "liberał" libertarians, chomskyites who still have balls& arent around 90 yrs old Ffs!, give the old geezer a breather!

Swivel eyed Lizard King eater

Flashback: Noam Chomsky's stance in the run up to the 1991 war on Iraq

01.12.2013 06:48


A one-way bombardment called Gulf War

by B. J. Sabri, Uruknet, 31 December 2005

"U.S. Economy: It has always been said that the war is good for the economy,
and in terms of dollars and cents that is usually the case. But much of the
new uncertainty in the outlook stems from the situation in Iraq. The risks
still evident there are one of the factors putting up oil and gasoline prices.
Iraq is also depressing consumer confidence . . . etc." --James C. Cooper &
Kathleen Madigan, War Jitters Won't Wipe Out This Recovery, BusinessWeeK, June
7, 2004, page 33. [Italics added]

Just four months before he obliterated Iraq in a one-way bombardment called
Gulf War (Iraq did not shoot a single bullet on American soil), George H. W.
Bush postulated how the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait provided the opportunity for
the creation of a new world; meaning a unipolar world ruled by the United
States. In his address to a joint session of Congress (September 11, 1990),
Bush senior, described the coming birth of that world with these words: "The
crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity
to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times,
our fifth objective -- a new world order. . . . )

By logic of a system aiming at world domination, the U.S. bombardment of Iraq
meant three things: a demonstration of American power at the "epicenter" and
master of the new order; a celebration in blood and destruction for the birth
of the same; and a message for those who dare to oppose it. It also announced
the new regulations of the "epicenter": (1) the self-arrogation of the right
to interfere in any part of the world to suit its imperialist interests, and
(2) the method with which it would resolve regional disputes inside its
periphery after the expected demise of the USSR: unilateral war.

But, considering the history of a power that has been thriving on pretexts and
wars, it is not difficult to speculate as to why Bush senior called the
invasion of Iraq, "crisis," and then elevated it to, a "rare opportunity" for
new "world order." Although, technically, a crisis is a predicament requiring
a resolution, in the imperialist lexicon it means an opportunity for

Since George H. Bush used the term, "crisis" in the context of opportunity,
how did progressives use that term in the context of the Iraqi invasion of
Kuwait, and how is this relevant to the occupation of Iraq? To discuss this
topic, I selected Noam Chomsky. Chomsky, an outstanding political thinker and
a lucid critic of U.S. imperialism in Latin America, but equivocal in other
regions, also employed the word "crisis" to describe the aftermath of the
Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Though, in contrast with Bush, he cogently
demystified it by noting:

The crisis began with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait a year ago. There was some
fighting; leaving hundreds killed according to Human Rights groups. That
hardly qualifies as war. Rather, in terms of crime against peace and humanity,
it falls roughly into the category of the Turkish invasion of northern Cyprus,
Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1978, and the U.S. invasion of Panama. In
these terms, it falls well short of Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon, and
cannot remotely be compared to the near-genocidal Indonesian invasion and
annexation of East Timor, to mention only two cases of aggression that are
still in progress with continuing atrocities, and with the crucial support of
those who most passionately professed their outrage over Iraq's aggression.

As for the notion of a "rare opportunity for a new world order," this needs no
explanation -- a USSR in a dissolution phase was no longer in any material
position to contest U.S. objectives for war and dominance in Iraq. Thus, for
his new order to be born, George H. W. Bush, a stolid war criminal in the
American tradition of extermination, devastated Iraq and murdered a great
number of its military personnel and civilian population with jingoistic
enthusiasm and imperialist vengeance. (I shall discuss Iraq's fatalities in
parts 41 and 42.)

Still, considering that Iraq refused not to withdraw its forces before
negotiation, and considering that the U.S. rejected all of Iraq and Saudi
Arabia's proposals for a settlement, let us assume for a moment that war was
the only means to evict Iraq from Kuwait. The imposing question remains, Why
the massive destruction of Iraq before liberating Kuwait? In other words, if
the purpose of U.S.-U.N. resolutions was to restore the sovereignty of Kuwait,
and since the United States could have easily defeated and dislodged the Iraqi
occupation force stationed there, why then destroy Iraq? What was the

You may ask, "Why am I talking about a war that happened 15 years ago, while
new realties -- invasion, occupation, and resistance -- should have priority?"
That may be; but before addressing that, we have to remember one thing:
dialectically, without the Gulf War and subsequent U.S.-U.N. resolutions that
imposed further sanctions on Iraq, and tied their lifting to Iraq's compliance
with an open-end disarmament process totally controlled by the United States,
that invasion would have never occurred despite dramatic changes worldwide.

Conclusively, while the Gulf War was the cornerstone for the future invasion
of Iraq, its aftermath transformed Iraq from a sovereign state into a hostage
in the hands of the United States, and by implication, Israel and U.S.
Zionists. For all practical reasons, the fate of Iraq has passed from the UN,
which authorized war against it, to the United States that made of it an
exclusive American issue.

Moreover, while the war ended with Iraq's surrender, it did not end with a
peace pact but with a ceasefire agreement. Did the UN sign it? No. General
Norman Schwarzkopf signed it on behalf of the United States; i.e., it was an
American-Iraqi agreement. Since then and up to the invasion, the U.S. used the
alibis that Iraq violated the terms of the agreement to launch a war of
attrition lasting 13 years.

Reevaluating the objectives of the Gulf war in relation to the neocon strategy
to conquer Iraq years later is, therefore, a prerequisite to understanding the
multiple purposes of the ongoing occupation, its failure, and, yes, its
"success" in destroying the ageless civilizations of Iraq, the imperialist
deformation of its social fabric, society, economy, culture, and national

The need for reevaluation could never be more important. Take U.S. propaganda
as an example. How many writers disputed Bush and Powell's statements that
Iraq, 13 years after that war was still an aggressive state, despite the fact
that Iraq, besieged by sanctions and deprived of necessities, could not move a
finger against any one in the region? Not only that, but before the invasion
of Iraq in 2003, all propaganda themes that accompanied the pre-Gulf War
period, returned intact, but with new additions: Iraq was cheating on U.N.
resolutions, and the baseless accusation of Iraq's involvement in the
unresolved event of 9/11.

As you can see, the arguments on the Iraqi question from the Gulf War until
present form one logical sequence. To see how this sequence works, let us go
back to Noam Chomsky. In 1991, Chomsky explained the origins of the Gulf War
as follows: "It is plain enough that Washington has little impact on
developments and no idea what to do as the Soviet system lurches from one
crisis to another. The response to Saddam Hussein's aggression, in contrast,
was an operation throughout, with Britain loyally in tow, reflecting the U.S.
insistence upon sole authority in the crucial energy-producing regions of the
Middle East." [1] [Italics added]

Surprisingly, Chomsky's essay was not without inconsistencies. Aside from not
addressing (at least, in passing) the regional conditions that preceded the
Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, he started from the invasion as an act, but avoided
a crucial argument whose treatment could have persuaded the skeptics on his
firm anti-imperialist stance, and, of course, analytical neutrality in
dissecting U.S. imperialistic decisions.

I am pointedly alluding to the fact that Chomsky's early years as a Zionist
settler living in a kibbutz in occupied Palestine (now Israel), did not allow
him to include Israel, U.S. Zionism, and their role in the war as an important
factor. He just mentioned the "U.S. insistence upon sole authority in the
crucial . . . etc." In essence, he excluded a plethora of irrefutable evidence
that firmly point to the "Gulf War" as Israel's war by its American proxy. It
is reasonable, therefore, to conclude that Chomsky's attitude toward the Iraqi
question is not objective and possibly mired by ulterior motives.

Second, it is not clear why Chomsky patronized the USSR and gave the U.S. the
higher ground as in his phrase, "the U.S. did not know what to do . . . etc.,"
and why did he refer to the Soviet Union as the "Soviet system," but referred
to the American system by calling on its capital -- Washington. As a master
linguist, he should have juxtaposed countries, capitals, or systems. This
raises the question whether Chomsky thinks that the United States is not a
system but a natural order.

Third, he sanctioned the U.S. imperialist hold on the Middle-Eastern Arab
nations by calling them abstractly, "crucial energy-producing regions of the
Middle East." But in writing so, Professor Chomsky reduced the lives of the
Arabs to nothing more than a crucial tool to satisfy American oil consumption
and imperialist whims.

Fourth, it is also not clear why Chomsky call the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait,
"aggression," and why did he qualify it as, "Saddam Hussein's aggression?" In
my reading of Chomsky, and unless I was inattentive, I have never come across
him referring to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, as, "Menachem Begin's
aggression." It was always: the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Did Chomsky imply
there is a distinction between aggression and invasion depending on who is the

Let us clear the ground. Of course, an invasion is a form of aggression, but
aggression, definitively, is not an invasion. In fact, there is a solid
distinction between aggression and invasion. Aggression presupposes and is
always indicative of the innocence of the invaded party who committed no
provocation to warrant either aggression, or invasion. But aggression denotes
an incursion on an adversary. Examples include the Israeli attack against the
Iraqi nuclear reactor of Osiraq in 1981, and Reagan's attack against Libya in
1987. Protracted aggression could also evolve into an invasion or the
occupation of a whole state or a part of its territory; an example is the
Israeli invasion of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian West Bank.

Invasion in the modern use, on the other hand, is a calculated move in
response to disputes mostly among adjacent states. Strength but not size is
the only factor that determines who initiates the invasion. But in no case, is
the size of a country an indication of its innocence or lack of aggression
(Israel is tiny, but it had invaded four adjacent states, and its
aggressiveness is boundless.) Examples of invasion include the Soviet invasion
of Afghanistan, the Iraqi invasions of Iran and Kuwait, and the American
invasions of Panama and Iraq -- both countries are not adjacent to the U.S.,
thus indicating the global imperialist nature of both invasions.

Since he chose to write, "Saddam Hussein's aggression," Chomsky insinuated the
perfidy of Saddam Hussein (thus his demonization), as opposed to the innocence
of the Emir of Kuwait. Although I firmly opposed the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait
as a way to resolve outstanding matters between the two countries, I also
firmly believe that no one has the right to claim the innocence of Kuwait
without knowing historical facts. Kuwait (an Iraqi territory severed by
Britain in 1921), was always aware of Iraq's claim over it, has been
constantly involved in anti-Iraqi activities since the 1960s, that is, even
before the advent of Saddam Hussein coming to power.

By branding Iraq as an aggressor, Chomsky overlooked Kuwait's intransigence
toward Iraq, pre-invasion disputes, Kuwaiti financing of Kurdish militia to
harass the Iraqi central government, and Kuwait's close work with the CIA to
overthrow the Iraqi regime. He only aimed at declaring Iraq as the sole
culpable party for that invasion by calling it "aggressor." This is fine,
except we need to establish culpability after investigating the case. To issue
a judgment solely based on the reputation assigned by the United States to
Saddam Hussein, while dismissing Iraq as a country and people, was a basic
U.S. strategy. The similarity between U.S. policy and Chomsky's conclusion
appears striking . . .

To delve inside the argument of Iraq's devastation, however, and to give you a
wider picture on how imperialist propaganda finds its way (either by choice --
scholars of history should search the archives before putting forward opinions
-- or by limitations imposed by the writer on the breadth of investigation) to
progressive writers, I have to add one more thing. In the same essay, Chomsky
made two more statements: one was right, and the other was pure

You recall that Chomsky stated, "There was some fighting; leaving hundreds
killed according to Human Rights groups." This statement is most likely
correct. According to several sources, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait had
possibly cost the lives of about 380 Kuwaitis and over 120 Iraqis. In
addition, Chomsky correctly qualified the body count with the phrase,
"according to," which, to a certain extent, is an acceptable approximation of
probable statistics in the absence of official data.

Oddly, in the following sentence, Chomsky hastily abandoned his caution and
embraced U.S. and Israeli propaganda on Kuwaiti fatalities without modifying
an iota. In effect, he became a posteriori, an apologist and a voluntary
mouthpiece for U.S. imperialism, as when he stated, "During the subsequent
months, Iraq was responsible for terrible crimes against Kuwait, with several
thousand killed and many tortured. But that is not war, rather state
terrorism, of the kind familiar among U.S. clients." The salient aspect of
this statement is that Chomsky did not specify the nature of these "terrible"
crimes, and his statement of "several thousand" killed and "many" tortured,
sounded, decidedly, unrealistic considering that immediately after the
invasion, there had not been any resistance against the occupation, hence no
reprisals by the occupiers.

To inform the reader, not even a few weeks into the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait,
an anti-Arab and anti-Muslim, Alabaman Zionist, named Jean P. Sasson,
published a small propaganda booklet detailing flagrantly false accounts on
Iraq's atrocities in Kuwait and the thousands of Kuwaitis that Iraqis killed.
She called her mound of lies, "The Rape of Kuwait: the True Story of Iraqi
Atrocities against a Civilian Population." Sasson's Zionist propaganda
blitzkrieg baptized under the adjective, "true story," inundated media and
cluttered the mouths of all talking heads of the United States. Of course, I
did not hear that Sasson has ever written any book about the Zionist rape of
Palestine, Sharon's ordered massacres of Sabra and Shatila, the American rape
of Iraq, or Abu Ghraib prison atrocities.)

By force of similar words and concepts, I submit that Chomsky's long phrase,
"Iraq was responsible for terrible crimes against Kuwait," echoes Sasson's
subtitle, "The True Story of Iraqi Atrocities against a Civilian Population."
Consequently, it seems that we have a problem: Chomsky, as Sasson, talked
about the Iraq invasion of Kuwait, but without corroborating or providing the
sources as to where he obtained all the information on those "terrible crimes"
and those "several thousand" killed and "many" tortured.

Further note, in my research of the Gulf War, the only sources that provided
disinformation on Iraqi atrocities, incubators, and the Kuwaitis that Iraq
abducted and took to Iraq were Zionist-controlled U.S. media to increase the
disposition of the American public for war. (Before the invasion of Iraq,
Chomsky wrote another masterpiece of imperialist literature, so convoluted, so
arcane, so insidious, that after publishing it, Znet hurried to reclassify it,
as "a satire." I shall discuss that article in the upcoming parts.)

Did Chomsky report facts or "Necessary Illusions" just to write an essay?
Beyond that, Chomsky, made the matter worse, as when he, to reinforce his
reports of those "several thousands killed . . . etc.," added, "But that is
not war . . . etc."

Implication: Chomsky decided to attribute those "several thousand" killed by
Iraq to state terrorism. Arguably, while state terrorism could be the right
definition to describe aggression, the concept presented by Chomsky is sternly
equivocal: while it provides hearsay as proof that the Iraqi invaders killed
all those Kuwaitis, it decidedly, but obliquely, implied that Iraq is a
terrorist state. A denomination so much cherished and used by U.S. ruling
circles, it made the propaganda war that preceded U.S. wars against Iraq up to
its invasion flow easier, and transformed the bombardment of the Iraqi
population into an inaudible rumble inside American homes.

One may rebut that this is an article about Chomsky, and that I put him
unnecessarily on trial because of drifting semantics. Two points: (1)
semantics is not the shell but the core of thought, and (2) by addressing the
political thought of Chomsky in relation to the Iraqi question, I am
attempting to point out a structural "crisis" within the anti-imperialist

To sum up, it is unsettling to see countless writers of all progressive
persuasions compete to highlight the excesses of the Saddam's regime without
addressing the historical conditions of Iraq or verifying claims. Inevitably,
this contributes, indirectly or directly, to the amplification of the
ideological wave to invade Iraq and a latent justification for the same. . . .
After the invasion, most of the progressive crowd ran to denounce the empire,
the cloths of the emperor, and the machinations of the coterie . . .

Having established the general debate on the Gulf War, was the bombardment of
Iraq really an inaudible rumble?

Weapons Used

In his outstanding essay, "The Myth of Surgical Bombing in the Gulf War"
(which first appeared in "War Crimes," edited by Ramsey Clark and others),
Paul walker gives an exhaustive account of the weapons the United States used
against the Iraqi people:

Some 88,500 tons of bombs have been dropped in over 109,000 sorties flown by a
total of 2,800 fixed-wing aircraft.

The total number of bombs dropped by allied forces in the war comes to about
250,000, of these only 22,000 were the so-called "smart bombs" or guided
bombs. About 10,000 of these guided bombs were laser-guided and about 10,000
were guided anti-tank bombs. The remaining 2,000 were radiation-guided bombs
directed at communication and radar installations.

2,095 HARM missiles

217 Walleye missiles

5,276 guided anti-tank missiles

44,922 cluster bombs and rockets

136,755 conventional bombs

4,077 guided bombs

Were these all the weapons the U.S. used to destroy Iraq as a nation? What was
the strategy behind the bombing? Was the targeting of Iraq's infrastructures
accidental? Did U.S. military planners predict the aftermath of bombardment?
To answer these and other questions, I shall quote more of Paul Walker's
article, bringing in other authors and sources, and discuss Iraq's casualties,
fatalities, health conditions, and related matters.



(1) City Lights Books, War After War, 1992; Noam Chomsky/Essay: The Gulf War
in Retrospect, Page 13


* B. J. Sabri is an Iraqi-American antiwar activist.

B. J. Sabri
- Homepage:

Global awakening

01.12.2013 10:52

Chomsky is the empire's #1 gatekeeper. His arrogance (and true colors) shone through again in his comments about 9/11. It is really encouranging to see that so many people are becoming aware of his treacherous role...


To all the Chomsky Knockers out there

01.12.2013 15:16

I implore you to read his books and his on-line articles. You will see that his approach to things is very consistent. You may disagree with what he is saying but it is always thoroughly considered and referenced. He tends to avoid very short articles and soundbites because he cannot properly get his message across in this format. He has written so extensively on so many different topics that it is easy to find a point of disagreement but, when you fully consider all of his work I believe that he has only been a force for good.

It is very easy to form a negative opinion on Noam Chomsky if you read what others have written about him. Read his work direct - it will open your mind further. To refer to him as the Gatekeeper is patently ridiculous.

Try any of the following recent books:

On Western Terrorism with Andre Vltchek
Nuclear War and Environmental Catastrophe with Laray Polk
Power Systems

John Andrews
mail e-mail:

and so it goes

01.12.2013 20:24

The game of ever-more-radical-than-thou procedes apace, and the left litmus tests itself out of existence.


gate keeper! gate keeper!

01.12.2013 23:10

Whenever I see someone say 'gatekeeper' I know that there is a high probability that this is someone who has not been able to make a case through reason or evidence, has not been able to convince anyone, and has chosen to attribute the failure to 'gatekeepers' suppressing 'the real truth'. The quicker someone is to play the gatekeeper card, the more likely that they're pushing some form of insanity.


I think Mr. Chomsky has done himself and us proud

02.12.2013 00:04

You are talking about a man who commited himself to anarchism and a libertarian approach that has placed him directly in the firing line of fascists, capitalists and various state security agengies. Not recently but for a long long time taking all that horrible pressure that comes with it.

The thing is he has a goal and that is to pass on our real history, not that of the capitalists, or those sadly trapped mentally within one event like the destruction of a couple of buildings in New York.

The class war is real and at the moment they are winning.


Protecting Israel: Chomsky’s Way

02.12.2013 07:11


Protecting Israel: Chomsky’s Way

by Ghali Hassan,, 5 April 2006

“[In 1953, after the establishment of Israel] I spent several very happy months working in a Kibbutz and for several years thought seriously about returning permanently. Some of my closest friends, including several who have had a significant influence on my own thinking over the years, now live in Kibbutzim or elsewhere in Israel and I retain close connections that are quite separate from any political judgments and attitudes”.
Noam Chomsky [1].

Reading the latest attacks to discredit Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt very credible and insightful assay on the pro-Israel Jewish Lobby in the US, one wonders why so many people come to defend Israel blindly. It appears that the critics are more interested in protecting Israel and elevating their positions than defend ‘free speech’, democracy, or the rights of the Palestinian people.

One of those attackers is the “celebrated” American linguist and US policy critic, Noam Chomsky. Chomsky condemnation of the two prominent professors, who are now accused of being “anti-Semites”, and lost the support of Harvard University, is a betrayal of academic freedom. Protecting Israel and Zionism has been Chomsky’s sacred duty from an early age. Chomsky is on record denying the existence of the pro-Israel Lobby in the US. Chomsky has no time for the role of Congress on US politics where 11 of its 100 congress members are unquestionably pro-Israel Jews. Chomsky’s criticism is often directed against the White House and the presidency ignoring the power of Congress.

Chomsky has been labelled as ‘self-hated Jews’, ‘radical leftist’ and recently as the ‘most important intellectual alive’. He is also revered by many people around the world. Chomsky protection of Israel is often misunderstood and unwisely credited with credibility and scholarship. But careful reading of Chomsky’s sheer volumes of repetitive work (books, articles, interviews and speeches) reveals the opposite of what his friends and “foes” follow and worship. While Chomsky allows people to see through US foreign policy, he limits them to a narrow form of thinking; a kind of brainwashing similar to that practice by religious cults and gurus. His supporters and devotees control an array of media outlets and publishing house. Criticising Chomsky is considered blasphemy and “anti-Semitism”.

Chomsky is not afraid to criticise Israel (you have to do that) and often called Israel justifiably “a terrorist state” for its brutal treatments of the Palestinian people. But Chomsky blames all Israeli crimes on the US. It’s the US who is committing the crimes, not Israel, said Chomsky. Israel is an innocent bystander. The same could be said for US-protected dictators around the world from Saudi Arabia and Egypt to Chile dictatorship under Pinochet.

It is part of the game to deflect the main responsibility on the US for providing Israel with aid and arms. This is part of the propaganda and provides people with some thing to feel good about. It is anti-Americanism and people love it. Indeed, a large segment of the “anti-war” movement is anti-Americanism and has nothing to do with opposing the US war on Iraq.

Chomsky’s argument is essentially that US support for Israel is to enhance US strategic interests, including Israel fight against Arabs “radical nationalism”, not due to pressure from the pro-Israel Lobby. In other word, Israel is a US “strategic asset”. This argument however proved to be the least credible, and is at best an old Zionist propaganda designed to manipulate public opinion, particularly American. In fact it is propagated by Israeli leaders and the pro-Israel Lobby for decades.

The evidence provided by Chomsky to support his argument is vague and at best not credible when compared with reality on the ground. For example, had the US supported more than 300 million Arabs – with the world most important energy resources – and not the few millions Israeli colonisers of Palestine, the US would be much, powerful and beloved than it is today. This is interesting because with the exemption of Iraq, all Arab governments are anti-nationalism. How Israel failed to predict the fall of the Shah of Iran and other major crises, Chomsky is not clear.

In 1991, the US Administration of George H. Bush (the father), was the only known US Administration to have stood up to the Pro-Israel Lobby. Knowing the support of the American people for a peaceful solution, the Bush administration initiated the James ‘Baker Plan’ for peace. According to the former Secretary of State, peace with the Palestinians and Israel's security “can be accommodated in a settlement based on Resolution 242”. UN Resolution 242 was adopted unanimously by the Security Council on 02 November 1967 after the 1967 war. It calls for the “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from [all] territories occupied in the recent conflict” and the “[t]ermination of all claims or states of belligerency”. It is important to mention here that Chomsky like most Israeli leaders finds UN Resolution 242 “rejectionist” and support Israel refusal to accept it.

Israel and the pro-Israel Lobby refused negotiation based on 242. Bush reacted angrily to the pro-Israel Lobby. In a press conference on 12 September 1991 Bush reiterated his opposition to the Lobby interference in US politics: ‘We are up against some powerful political forces ... very strong and effective groups that go up to the Hill … We’ve only got one lonely little guy down here doing it ... [But] I am going to fight for what I believe. It may be popular politically but probably not ... the question isn’t whether it’s good for 1992 politics. What’s important here is that we give the process a chance. And I don’t care if I only get one vote ... I believe the American people will be with me’ [2]. Unhappy about Bush, US Senators and Jewish organisations in the US led by the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) mobilised a vicious successful campaign to defeat Bush. As predicted, Bush lost the 1992 elections to Bill Clinton by a narrow margin and Israel triumphed again.

AIPAC is simply “a de facto agent for a foreign government” and enjoys tax exempt status no other foreign organisation enjoys. With about 100,000 wealthy members form a single ethnic group and a massive budget wields a formidable force in US politics. “AIPAC’s success is due to its ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda, and punish those who challenge it”, write Professors Mearsheimer and Walt. Supported by the US major television networks and the nation’s largest newspaper chain and most influential single newspaper, the New York Times, AIPAC has ousted anyone who is not following its pro-Israel agenda. In 1982, AIPAC led a very successful campaign to defeat Senator Paul Findley, of Springfield, Illinois. And in 1984 Senator Charles Percy Chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Committee was ousted, and everyone since got the message.

Furthermore, Chomsky fails to analyse the role of the pro-Israel Lobby, and AIPAC in particular in funding and electing pro-Israel candidates while it continues using its formidable “anti-Semitism” tool to intimidate and bully those who disagree with its Zionist agenda. It doesn’t concern Chomsky, himself a pro-democracy dissident that the pro-Israel Lobby has become the most anti-democratic force in the US. His condemnation of Professors Mearsheimer and Walt is a betrayal of academic freedom and only enhances the power of the pro-Israel Lobby.

On the ‘right of return’ of Palestinians to their homeland, a right which is enshrined in UN Resolution 194 (III) and recognised by the vast majority of the world community, Chomsky was deceptive: “[T]here is no detectable international support for it, and under the (virtually unimaginable) circumstances that such support would develop, Israel would very likely resort to its ultimate weapon, defying even the boss-man, to prevent it. In that case there would be nothing to discuss. The facts are ugly, but facts do not go out of existence for that reason. In my opinion, it is improper to dangle hopes that will not be realized before the eyes of people suffering in misery and oppression. Rather, constructive efforts should be pursued to mitigate their suffering and deal with their problems in the real world”. In other word, don’t upset the illegal Jewish settlers because of the Palestinian refugees.

On a single, democratic and secular state for Jews and Palestinians (Muslims and Christians), Chomsky is non-negotiable: “There has never been a legitimate proposal for a democratic secular state from any significant Palestinian (or of course Israeli) group. One can debate, abstractly, whether it is ‘desirable’. But it is completely unrealistic. There is no meaningful international support for it, and within Israel, opposition to it is close to universal. It is understood that this would soon become a Palestinian state with a Jewish minority and with no guarantee for either democracy or secularism (even if the minority status would be accepted, which it would not). Those who are now calling for a democratic secular state are, in my opinion, in effect providing weapons to the most extreme and violent elements in Israel and the US”. Of course, Chomsky provides no evidence for this charade.

In the early 1970s, most Palestinians supported the formation of a single democratic state for Palestinians and Jews to live together, as it has been for centuries. Today, many Palestinians have no problem coexisting with Jews in a Palestine based on democratic and equal right principles, which is the only just and genuine solution. It is Israelis who refuse to recognise the Palestinians. According to Israeli daily, Ha’aretz (22 March 2006) more than 68 per cent of Israeli Jews refuse to live in the same building with Palestinian citizen of Israel. Chomsky is in favour of a dominant, “Jewish-only state”. He sees Jews living as a “minority” in a democratic Palestine with equal rights is unacceptable. Chomsky must be thinking that Jews are ‘superior race’. As Virginia Tilley argues, a single sate which provides protection for all its citizens “against ethnic discrimination is the only viable option”.

It is important to remember that Chomsky is leading the pack for the so-called “two-state” option, or the Geneva Accord. The “two-state” option is a trap for Palestinians and Chomsky knows it very well. According to the Geneva Accord, Palestinians will be trapped in prisons-like ghettoes made inaccessible by illegal settlements and Jews-only roads. Palestinians will continue to be denied self-determination and freedom of movement. The new ghettoes will be separated from each other with no meaningful sovereignty, resources of its own, independent economy or army capable of defending the population. The four million Palestinian refugees will lose their ‘right of return’ to their land. It is the legalisation of the 1948 Nakbah – the ‘catastrophe’ of dispossession and expulsion. It will legitimise Israel’s claim on Palestine and enforce Israel’s colonial rules, as Amram Mitzna, Labor member of the Knesset revealed in his Ha’aretz article. It is like the Oslo “Peace Process”, a game to continue the Palestinian genocide. The “two-state” option was never a viable option giving Israel’s terror against the Palestinians.

Israel is happy to continue cutting Palestinian land into ghettoes separated by the Apartheid Wall and under a brutal system of Apartheid and Occupation. The system is recently described by liberal Jews and Israeli journalists as worse than that practiced in South Africa two decades ago [3]. It should be noted that the system is very useful in keeping the Israeli military (Occupation forces) in a strong position politically. The Israeli society functions as militarised society with a form of democracy similar to that in the US.

With Israel relies heavily on the massive aid it receives from US taxpayers, any economic sanctions could force Israel to seek a peaceful settlement with the endogenous Palestinians. Chomsky views on sanctioning Israel to force it in the same way South Africa was forced to dismantle Apartheid and Iraq was forced to give-up WMDs are hypocritical at best. In March 2004, on behalf of the Journal of South African and American Comparative Studies (Safundi), Professor Christopher Lee of Harvard University interviewed Chomsky about Israel’ Apartheid Wall and sanctions. “Apartheid was one particular system and a particularly ugly situation”. To use the term to describe Israel, “It's just to wave a red flag, when it's perfectly well to simply describe the situation. But I should say is that this is all entirely different from the Occupied Territories” [4].

When Chomsky asked if he sees sanctions against Israel as a possibility? He replied: “No. In fact I've been strongly against it in the case of Israel. For a number of reasons. For one thing, even in the case of South Africa, I think sanctions are a very questionable tactic. In the case of South Africa, I think they were [ultimately] legitimate because it was clear that the large majority of the population of South Africa was in favor of it”. He added: “Sanctions hurt the population. You don't impose them unless the population is asking for them. That's the moral issue. So, the first point in the case of Israel is that: Is the population asking for it? Well, obviously not”. The Palestinian people are enduring years of sanctions imposed on them by Israel’s long blockades and restrictions of freedom of movement. Indeed, The Palestinian people have time and again called for sanctions against Israel.

We know that Chomsky was behind the recently watered-down divestment resolution at MIT, where he is emeritus professor and exerts formidable influence on students’ activism there. Chomsky denounced the campaign and voted against divestment and sanctions against Israel. Many people and organisations around the world, including prominent Palestinian intellectuals and politicians, have called for divestment and sanctions against Israel. Palestinians were shocked by Chomsky’s betrayal of their cause. Chomsky’s aim is to deceit rather than defend the Palestinians.

According to Francis Boyle is Professor of International Law Legal at Illinois University; “[A] worldwide divestment/disinvestment campaign against Israel can produce an historic reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians--just as it successfully did between Whites and Blacks in South Africa. This new divestment/disinvestment campaign should provide the Palestinians with enough economic and political leverage needed to negotiate a just and comprehensive peace settlement with the Israelis--just as it did for the Blacks in South Africa”. Giving Israel’s dependence on massive US aid, any form of economic sanction will force her to negotiate a peaceful settlement.

Palestine is becoming a career; it is no longer a terrorised community. Academics and intellectuals have used the suffering of the Palestinian people to advance their own interests and egos. It is like those who are making a career out of attacking Islam and Muslims.

On the US war on Iraq, Chomsky agrees with many people that the US motive is the control of Iraq’s oil resources and US imperialism. Although this is partially true, protection the state of Israel and the expansion of Zionism ideology remains major motives. It is on every American mind that Israel and the pro-Israel Lobby in the US are the main motivators for the war on Iraq. Indeed, the so-called “War for Oil” was the creation of the pro-Israel Lobby and spread out by Jewish intellectuals and their key operatives in the US government and the Zionist mainstream media. Chomsky even refuses to acknowledge that the group of Zionists ‘cabal’ or the neocons, including Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, ‘Scooter’ Libby, Elliot Abrams and others who formulated the policy and made the decision to got to war. Does Chomsky know who is pushing for war on Iran?

Chomsky criticised the US because the US violated international law and the UN Charter and committed crimes against Iraq. The war was an illegal act of aggression, and the Occupation of Iraq is against the majority of the Iraqi people. However, Chomsky praised the invasion for it “removes Saddam and the sanctions”. As we know these are the views of Bush and Blair. Iraq is far worse today than before the invasion at all levels. On the Occupation itself, Chomsky is like his army of devotees; he is very surprised it didn’t work. Chomsky calls the premeditated and deliberate destruction of Iraq an “American incompetence”. The worst is that Chomsky praised the US-staged elections as “democratic”. Elections under foreign occupation are illegitimate and imperialist propaganda. The Iraqi elections were fraudulent elections designed to legitimise the imperialist Occupation and cement civil strife and fratricidal killings.

On the right of Iraqis to self-determination and national independence, Chomsky is flagrant. He called the Iraqi Resistance “bomb throwers” and follows the Bush-Blair line of labelling anyone resisting US terrorism as “terrorist”. The US war on Iraq is “creating more terrorists”, said Chomsky. On the Iraqi Resistance, Chomsky is emphatic. It is a “violent insurgency”, he said. Chomsky seems unaware of the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children needlessly slaughtered with “trigger happy” violent US forces and their mercenaries. The illegal mass arrests without charge, torture, abuse and sexual humiliation of Iraqi civilians is not the most flagrant violation of human rights. The daily bombardments – with cluster bombs, napalms, chemical and phosphorous bombs – and the destruction of Iraqi cities are not the most heinous war crimes in the history. How long will the American people remain silent in the face of injustice, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in their name?

Finally, Chomsky’s analysis of Middle East suffers from his tendency of demonising the Arabs, while covertly defending his own ethnic group. Chomsky’s earlier views are not different form his views today. People with moral consciousness and open mind should not fall into Chomsky’s trap.

Ghali Hassan lives in Perth, Western Australia.



[1] Chomsky, Noam. (1974). Peace in the Middle East. Vintage: London, (p. 49-51).

[2] Arens, Moshe. (1995). Broken Covenant, Simon & Schuster: New York.

[3] McGreal, Chris (2006). Worlds Apart. The Guardian, 06 February. Gideon Levi (2006). One racist nation. Ha’aretz, 27 March 2006.

[4] Lee, Christopher J. (2004). South Africa, Israel-Palestine, and the Contours of the Contemporary World Order: An Interview with Noam Chomsky. Safundi, 13-14.


Ghali Hassan
- Homepage:

Noam Chomsky would probably disagree with this article

02.12.2013 22:40

And so do i


@ hassan

02.12.2013 23:15

A tl;dr repost of a 2006 post from an obscure site all about how Uncle Noam isn't sufficiently interested in destroying Israel, and that this has something or other to do with ... well, something about 9/11 but who knows what. Yeah, that's really going to change a lot of minds about 9/11, isn't it.

say what

More than meets the eye!?!

02.12.2013 23:50

For reference purposes:
Here's an interesting piece written by Richard Falk concerning Chomsky and RZ Alan Dershowitz, reposted on Gilad Atzmon's site. It may add to the debate;



04.12.2013 22:26

It's weird

Is in that video answer Chomsky says "they [Bush co] blamed it on the Saudis" what!?

According to Sen Bob Graham who's Intelligence ctte report about the attacks which had 28 pages redacted, which he later revealed in his book were a list of Saudi names who had sponsored the attacks some - Saudi royals were included

Also Bush let 140 Saudis fly out of the US on 9-11 including some Bin Ladens. So no they didn't blame it on the Saudis I mean saying they blamed it on the Saudis is just plain false, nonsense, disinformation. And then there was the strange case of the 20th hijacker a Saudi told to go home by a lowly customs guard who was later sacked because the orders were not to harrass or impede Saudis So wtf is Chomsky up to "Bush blamed the Saudis" huh Noam? it's just false, nonsense, disinformation.

Then he says
Something along the lines of

"If 9-11 was a false flag they would have blamed it on Iraq because Bush and co weren't lunatics"

well Bush and Co did try desperately to connect Al-Qaeda to Saddam Hussein on numerous occasions, 61 times according to this senate report.

And here's the War Criminal Bush in a 2002 speech connecting the dots for his frightened authoritarian following listners with regard to the AQ - 9-11 - Saddam connection

FFS there's even a wikipedia page about it Noam!

And all that stuff about Professional Journals and Peer Reviews as someone pointed out above coming from an Anarchist its just a huge appeal to Hierarchy and Authority, wtf Noam pleeez!.

Just so uncharacteristic of a dude who is normally so accurate in his answers but here he just ignores publicly available documents and makes up a load of bollox about Bush not being a lunatic, most uncharacteristic and frankly fuckin' weird. There's more but I'm just too weirded out by this load of old toss from one of the greatest intellectuals of our time.


Upcoming Coverage
View and post events
Upcoming Events UK
24th October, London: 2015 London Anarchist Bookfair
2nd - 8th November: Wrexham, Wales, UK & Everywhere: Week of Action Against the North Wales Prison & the Prison Industrial Complex. Cymraeg: Wythnos o Weithredu yn Erbyn Carchar Gogledd Cymru

Ongoing UK
Every Tuesday 6pm-8pm, Yorkshire: Demo/vigil at NSA/NRO Menwith Hill US Spy Base More info: CAAB.

Every Tuesday, UK & worldwide: Counter Terror Tuesdays. Call the US Embassy nearest to you to protest Obama's Terror Tuesdays. More info here

Every day, London: Vigil for Julian Assange outside Ecuadorian Embassy

Parliament Sq Protest: see topic page
Ongoing Global
Rossport, Ireland: see topic page
Israel-Palestine: Israel Indymedia | Palestine Indymedia
Oaxaca: Chiapas Indymedia
All Regions
South Coast
Other Local IMCs
Bristol/South West
Social Media
You can follow @ukindymedia on and Twitter. We are working on a Twitter policy. We do not use Facebook, and advise you not to either.
Support Us
We need help paying the bills for hosting this site, please consider supporting us financially.
Other Media Projects
Dissident Island Radio
Corporate Watch
Media Lens
Earth First! Action Update
Earth First! Action Reports
All Topics
Animal Liberation
Climate Chaos
Energy Crisis
Free Spaces
Ocean Defence
Other Press
Public sector cuts
Social Struggles
Terror War
Workers' Movements
Major Reports
NATO 2014
G8 2013
2011 Census Resistance
Occupy Everywhere
August Riots
Dale Farm
J30 Strike
Flotilla to Gaza
Mayday 2010
Tar Sands
G20 London Summit
University Occupations for Gaza
Indymedia Server Seizure
COP15 Climate Summit 2009
Carmel Agrexco
G8 Japan 2008
Stop Sequani
Stop RWB
Climate Camp 2008
Oaxaca Uprising
Rossport Solidarity
Smash EDO
Past Major Reports
Encrypted Page
You are viewing this page using an encrypted connection. If you bookmark this page or send its address in an email you might want to use the un-encrypted address of this page.
If you recieved a warning about an untrusted root certificate please install the CAcert root certificate, for more information see the security page.

Global IMC Network

satellite tv


estrecho / madiaq
la plana
northern england
nottingham imc
united kingdom

Latin America
chile sur
cmi brasil
cmi sucre
puerto rico


South Asia

United States
hudson mohawk
kansas city
minneapolis/st. paul
new hampshire
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
rogue valley
saint louis
san diego
san francisco
san francisco bay area
santa barbara
santa cruz, ca
tampa bay
united states
western mass

West Asia


fbi/legal updates
mailing lists
process & imc docs