[ 20 November 2007: Message edited by: COAnews ]

Thanks COAnews!

[ 20 November 2007: Message edited by: RevolutionPlease ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
I think Chomsky is great, why doesn't he get much respect here?
[ 20 November 2007: Message edited by: RevolutionPlease ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgm:

Where's 'here'?

---

at babble.ca

he sticks to the "Lee Harvey Oswald did it" version of the JFK assassination.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Abdul_Maria:
Chomsky gets to be a Liberal GateKeeper as long as he doesn't rock the boat too much.

he sticks to the "Lee Harvey Oswald did it" version of the JFK assassination.

he also sticks to the "US government had no advance knowledge of 9-11" official explanation

---

Damn that Chomsky for not jumping on board every conspiracy that lacks a speck of evidence. Chomsky is intelligent and well researched enough to recognize that his reputation would be mud if he promoted conspiracies that have no substance.

RFK Jr. has ruined his own reputation because instead of researching the facts about autism and vaccinations (which is that study after massive have shown zero link, nothing scientific supports a link, so-called "experts" - meaning people who are profitting from claiming a link and then selling products to cure the "cause" - claiming a link have been routinely laughed out of court in the US when it is a shown that the average 4 year old should be able recognize that they are just making shit up.) instead he jumped on the conspiracy bandwagon after being duped by pathological liars and hucksters. It is a real shame, but every interview or debate that I have seen RFK Jr in over the last couple months has been the same. No matter what the topic is supposed to be his opponents bring up his position on autism and RFK looks like an idiot. "Why should we trust you on global warming Robert, when you have shown that you will believe any conspiracy like autism/vaccination conspiracy? You were wrong about that, why should we believe you about this?" etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Abdul_Maria:
Chomsky gets to be a Liberal GateKeeper as long as he doesn't rock the boat too much.

he sticks to the "Lee Harvey Oswald did it" version of the JFK assassination.

he also sticks to the "US government had no advance knowledge of 9-11" official explanation.

---

I think there are more important things to focus on. Why do the "9/11 truth" people have a tendency to think Chomsky should drop everything and focus on whether the Bush administration was behind the WTC attacks?

[ 21 November 2007: Message edited by: Lord Palmerston ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lord Palmerston:

I think there are more important things to focus on. Why do the "9/11 truth" people have a tendency to think Chomsky should drop everything and focus on whether the Bush administration was behind the WTC attacks?

---

Yes there are more important things.

But on the other hand people should not dismiss Chomsky's lack of support for 9/11 truth and (as was mentioned earlier) a conspiracy surrounding the JFK assassination as ignorance or lack of time to look into those issues. Chomsky has dismissed both conspiracies as irrational. I have looked into both and I agree with him.

On 9/11 truth Chomsky has said: "That's an internet theory and it's hopelessly implausible. Hopelessly implausible. So hopelessly implausible I don't see any point in talking about it."

On the JFK assassination he has said: "The JFK assassination has engendered a kind of cult-like reaction, and ordinarily rational people act in what seem to me very strange ways."

Conspiracy buffs can't handle that someone might not come to the same conclusion that they have, so instead they lump Chomsky into the conspiracy too. That's right Chomsky is afraid to speak about about the real important things like the inside job, he doesn't want to rock the boat. Right because Chomsky has a long history of not rocking the boat. Chomsky recognizes that neither the 9/11 truthers or the JFK conspiracy nuts have never come up with a single rational piece of evidence (In 44 years in the case of JFK).

[ 21 November 2007: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]