Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Thrash is back with his bullshit but Rebels are for Occupy and Truth. Get used to it.

Posted 2 years ago on May 12, 2012, 6:01 a.m. EST by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (627) from Bronx, NY 35 minutes ago Rebels are for Occupy and Truth. Get used to it. "Ad hominem in what way? Show evidence for your claims." You accuse people of associations with all sorts of strange notions, like reptilians, and Zietgeist. You call people names like "conspiracy theorist" when you cannot respond and demolish their arguments or questions. Truth is the official 9/11 theory is the most absurd conspiracy theory of all. Even Truther baiter Noam Chomsky has inched towards truth by reminding himself after eleven years that there is no evidence against Bin Laden and that the Taliban twice offered to turn Bin Laden over but their offers were rejected by the US of A. Oh check out prominent Occupy supporter Immortal Technique. http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=ggzSzl2oDHI http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=3u3JSEqNtlg Immortal Technique: A Truther and someone to whom OWS looks for support. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=immortal+technique+may+day&oq=immortal+technique+may+day&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=youtube-reduced.12...81901.91305.0.96995.26.13.0.13.13.0.240.1190.11j0j2.13.0...0.0.MKxejWATTt0

75 Comments

75 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 2 years ago

It will take a revolution just to get decent reforms. In fact it will take a revolution to stop the .01% from destroying the human race. Voting just won't do it, but voting can be a part of mobilizing for the revolution that is necessary.

http://bumrushthevote.net/

Diversity of tactics is what it's called.

[-] 1 points by Reneye (118) 2 years ago

Immortal Technique ~~WOW! Many celebrities and performers try to expose what's happening, but they're scared. This guy says it loud and clear. Maybe this will open the doors (and mics) for the others to get louder. That was soooooooo cool!

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Yeah that track is very powerful.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

The 99% have been forgotten by OWS, as far as I can see, but I will keep looking.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by flip (7102) 2 years ago

not sure what your deal is here - i stopped reading after this obvious lie - "Noam Chomsky has inched towards truth by reminding himself after eleven years that there is no evidence against Bin Laden and that the Taliban twice offered to turn Bin Laden" - sorry to call you a liar if you are simply ignorant but chomsky has said (to great criticism i might add) that there is no evidence just a few months after the attack - either start reading or stop writing!

[-] 2 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Thrashy: "Truthers are hurting OWS. "

Then attend a GA and reprimand them for having the notorious "truther" poet and musician Immortal Technique perform at their May Day rally.

[-] -1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Chomsky reminded himself after attacking and ridiculing the truth for years. In those several statements, speeches and interviews he could have said "You know, the FBI has not charged Bin Laden with the crimes of 9/11, that is because there is no evidence linking Bin Laden to those events and in fact the Taliban offered twice to turn him over for trial." He could have begged off on everything else, as not being a structural engineer. But no the Chomster needed to mock and attack. Ten years later he's talking to Press TV. No mocking, no attacking but a smidgen, an important smidgen, of truth. What a phucker.

[-] 2 points by flip (7102) 2 years ago

you are silly - he said the same thing from the beginning - i do not have the time to go on google and prove you wrong but it is easily done - do it yourself

[-] 0 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Bullshyte, find one link prior to the execution of Bin Laden.

[-] 2 points by flip (7102) 2 years ago

and when i do you will say how sorry you are to be spreading lies or will you simply not respond and then spread the same lie some other time - not much new here i do not have the time to look more but you can - he said most of this before the invasion - you should start to read - then you should start to think - now post a retraction - Friday, November 5, 2010 Noam Chomsky: No Evidence that Al-Qaeda Carried Out the 9/11 Attacks

Leading liberal intellectual Noam Chomsky just told Press TV: Leading liberal intellectual Noam Chomsky just told Press TV:

"The explicit and declared motive of the [Afghanistan] war was to compel the Taliban to turn over to the United States, the people who they accused of having been involved in World Trade Center and Pentagon terrorist acts. The Taliban…they requested evidence…and the Bush administration refused to provide any," the 81-year-old senior academic made the remarks on Press TV's program a Simple Question.

"We later discovered one of the reasons why they did not bring evidence: they did not have any."

The political analyst also said that nonexistence of such evidence was confirmed by FBI eight months later.

"The head of FBI, after the most intense international investigation in history, informed the press that the FBI believed that the plot may have been hatched in Afghanistan, but was probably implemented in the United Arab Emirates and Germany."

Chomsky added that three weeks into the war, "a British officer announced that the US and Britain would continue bombing, until the people of Afghanistan overthrew the Taliban... That was later turned into the official justification for the war."

"All of this was totally illegal. It was more, criminal," Chomsky said.
[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

You said that Comsky took this position from the beginning. It began September 11, 2001 and not November 5, 2010. and I see no supposed campaign of attacks on Chomsky for pointing (so rather belatedly) to these obvious truths. but you are right, this comment predated the execution. I was not properly informed. I do apologize for that. I should have checked more closely. My main point though still stands. Chomsky could have said these things nine years earlier. it would have possibly helped end this horrible war sooner. He chose to sit on this. His words do count in spite of the fact that I and many others have little or no respect for him.

[-] 0 points by flip (7102) 2 years ago

you are wrong again - i heard him say it and read it many times in 2002 and 2003 (or there about)- as i said i do not have time to do the research for you but try this - http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20020201.htm - time to give up your uninformed opinion and inform yourself - read the piece and tell what you find that is not to your liking. when i get back from the road i will have time to help you understand his position - if you disagree with it then we will at least know what we are talking about - right now i think we are in two different worlds

[-] 3 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

This is useless. Are you offering solutions? What should we do?

[-] 1 points by flip (7102) 2 years ago

that of course is the main question but i don't think it is useless to defend someone who has given a large part of his life to the cause and is attacked by ignorant fools. this is something the left is good at - divide and conquer is what they are supposed to try to do to us - we should not be doing it to ourselves. go back 50 years and start reading chomsky and then write to dopey shube about what he stands for!

[-] 4 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Isn't it the right wing who does the divide and conquer thing? Chomsky is great. i don't need to defend him. Shube and anyone who spends time attacking him are just wasting time. It's a distraction. The real issues are economic inequity, Jobs, healthcare, constitutional freedoms under attack. wasetful wars. thats where my focus is. Support OWS. Vote out anti obamacare politicians

[-] 1 points by flip (7102) 2 years ago

i agree all the way - up to the anti obama care thing - single payer is the way to go don't you think

[-] -3 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

I do. That would be real competition for the health insurance criminals. Remove the profit from health care. It's just immoral.

[+] -4 points by hank345 (-2) 2 years ago

Fuck the Democrats. Fuck the Republicans. And fuck Demopublican plants like you, VQkag. Factsrfun admitted he's a Democratic Party hack. Why don't you do the same thing and get the fuck out of this forum...

http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/americans-have-three-choices-in-november-bushbamne/#comment-739976

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Another login? Same unimpressive auto response. I'm independent. I want improvement. You haven't stated anything you want except to get me out of the forum. you can't handle the truth! So you resort to attempting to silence me. Predictable. Bully! Support OWS. Vote out anti solar politicians

[+] -4 points by indy456 (0) 2 years ago

You fooled some, VQkag. But not many, and not for long...

We must ignore 1% operatives like VQkag trying to keep us focused on issues that divide us and not the issues that unite us. Keep focusing on the wedge issues that divide us and the two-party tyranny built around them, and the 1% stay in power. Deal with them long enough for the People to unite and destroy our oppressors, and when the fight is over they may not even be wedge issues anymore.

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

I Support OWS. i am the 99%. you are trying to silence me. Instead of schoolyard bullying and name calling why dont you discuss issues that matter to the 99%. Support OWS. Vote out anti wind power politicians

[-] -2 points by carl321 (0) 2 years ago

You are a lying sack of shit. Almost every post you make here is a plug for the Democratic Party or an apology for Bushbama. Go post at MoveOn.org, you partisan POS!

[-] -3 points by danzer (-51) 2 years ago

wind, solar, a waste of taxpayer money.

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

I'm more interested in improving todays crushing problems. Love the Chomsk but not gonna get bogged down in the mess. Support OWS Vote out pro war politicians

[-] 1 points by flip (7102) 2 years ago

and vote in who?

[-] 5 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

I personally believe the dems can be made to serve the 99%. As long as we continue protest/pressure after the election. OWS has to continue and grow. Its the only way.

[-] 5 points by flip (7102) 2 years ago

obama seems to be one of those pro war pols

[-] 4 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

don't believe the hype. the Pres has taken the first steps to unravel the constant "war on terror" that Bush/Cheney created to beat/scare our population into submission. He would have done more if not for Republican obstruction and the widespread apathy. If we can continue protests/pressure then the left wing can grow a backbone and do what the 99% need..

[-] 4 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Clarasprings and fred234 always resort to schoolyard bullying tactics because they can't discuss anything in a civil way. We disagree people. Isn't that allowed? Can't you take a little dissent. Support OWS. Vote out anti buffett rule politicians

[-] 1 points by dan1984 (108) from Cumberland, MD 2 years ago

Here are my questions: Why did he sign NDAA? Why hasn't he repealed the Patriot Act? Or the wiretapping act? Why is he completely ignoring OWS? Why hasn't he rid politics of lobbyists? Why does he not support gay marriage in 2008, but he does now? He is a smooth talker, and I believed in him in 2008, but he is only a talker. His actions speak louder than his words. Until he proves otherwise, I say he is a war monger just like Bush, Cheney, Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan and on and on and on.

[-] 0 points by ClaraSprings (91) 2 years ago

The democrats will never do what OWS wants. Stop taking too many old people meds. The only people who are going to do what OWS wants are OWS people.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by ClaraSprings (91) 2 years ago

When is Obama going to stop the wars and implement health-care for all citizens?

[-] 0 points by danzer (-51) 2 years ago

0bama is a fabrication.

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Support OWS. Vote out pro norquist politicians

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Like Mittney? Where does he stand on what issue today? Bet you can't answer that, except that he'd sure like President Obama's job.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

We have a slim chance with him. Even with all his weaknesses. Be strong.Support OWS. Vote out anti volcker rule politicians

[+] -4 points by fred234 (8) 2 years ago

Fuck the Democrats. Fuck the Republicans. And fuck Demopublican plants like you, VQkag. Factsrfun admitted he's a Democratic Party hack. Why don't you do the same thing and get the fuck out of this forum...

http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/americans-have-three-choices-in-november-bushbamne/#comment-739976

[-] 4 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Language! Is that you able? Can't we all just get along? Support OWS. vote out anti gay politicians

[-] -2 points by fred234 (8) 2 years ago

You fooled some, VQkag. But not many, and not for long...

We must ignore 1% operatives like VQkag trying to keep us focused on issues that divide us and not the issues that unite us. Keep focusing on the wedge issues that divide us and the two-party tyranny built around them, and the 1% stay in power. Deal with them long enough for the People to unite and destroy our oppressors, and when the fight is over they may not even be wedge issues anymore.

[-] 3 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

you don't like gay people fred?

[-] -2 points by fred234 (8) 2 years ago

I don't like YOU because you are trying to co-opt this forum for the Democratic Party. That has nothing to do with you being gay, VQkag.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Doug654 and Fred234 both with 0 points copy and paste the same exact message in reply to VQdag.... interesting. How many more accounts do you have?

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Probably thrasy again. Can't you tell by the way he writes?

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

can't do it huh? Support OWS. vote out pro big oil politicians. Agree? Disagree?

[-] -1 points by doug654 (-2) 2 years ago

Fuck the Democrats. Fuck the Republicans. And fuck Demopublican plants like you, VQkag. Factsrfun admitted he's a Democratic Party hack. Why don't you do the same thing and get the fuck out of this forum...

http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/americans-have-three-choices-in-november-bushbamne/#comment-739976

[-] 0 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Fred?

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (26055) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Where's Barney, Where's Dino?

[-] 0 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

You can't silence me. We are the 99% . We are legion! We do not forget. We do not forgive. you will be assimilated. Support OWS. Vote out anti anonymous politicians

[-] -2 points by eboz987 (-7) 2 years ago

Yeah, yeah. "Vote for Obama". You're a broken record, VQkag.

[-] 0 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

I'm just expressing my opinion on important issues. You are simply attacking me. Get on the record. Do you support your gay fellow 99%'rs or NOT! DO you support politicians who hate gays, immigrants, Alternative energy. or NOT! Speak up! Support OWS. Vote out anti fin reform politicians. Agree or not?. Want fin reform or not? Speak up. find your big boy words.

[-] -2 points by carl321 (0) 2 years ago

You fooled some, VQkag. But not many, and not for long...

We must ignore 1% operatives like VQkag trying to keep us focused on issues that divide us and not the issues that unite us. Keep focusing on the wedge issues that divide us and the two-party tyranny built around them, and the 1% stay in power. Deal with them long enough for the People to unite and destroy our oppressors, and when the fight is over they may not even be wedge issues anymore.

[-] 0 points by able132 (50) 2 years ago

Yes. Vote out ALL pro-war politicians: Democrat and Republican.

[-] -2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

fred?

[-] 0 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The Taliban twice offered to turn over bin Laden. The second time they didn't even demand evidence that he was connected to the crime of 9/11. Chomsky didn't quite say that, until 2010 now did he? And yet it had been reported in the press in October of 2001. Chomsky refers to an Arab women's group who had made mention that the Taliban had requested evidence and didn't get it from the US and he endorses their call for efforts to force the Taliban to extradite bin Laden. That wasn't necessary. They were ready to turn him over. Bush demanded they turn him over while they offered to do so and he refused!

The crimes against millions of people in Afghanistan that Chomsky eloquently writes about are the main thing that motivates me to attack and undercut the basis, the excuse for this horrendous invasion and mass murder. Knowledge of the truth- that the Taliban offered to turn bin Laden over, that there is no evidence that bin Laden had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks, (and I agree these attacks pale in comparison to the dozens and hundreds of 9/11's that the US and friends have visited upon Iraq and Afghanistan day in and day out year after year)- knowledge of the truth- that the official story of the 9/11 attacks just don't hold up, that hundreds of architects and engineers have put their necks out to try to expose this, that the government stalled and sabotaged and undermined any real investigation of what happened - covered up something - knowledge of these facts undercut support for this criminal war, and I live in hope that the day comes when those responsible have to answer to the world for what they did and pay a just lawful severe penalty for doing so.

[-] 2 points by flip (7102) 2 years ago

are you responding to what i wrote - you have said nothing about the original point you made that was way off base - do some reading - chomsky wrote volumes on the build up to the war and it's aftermath. read what he wrote then move on! VQkag is right but what the hell would motivate you to attack soomeone who has fought for justice since before you were born - too many here do that and it is insanity

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Chomsky was cashing checks from the pentagon when I was also. Except he was in their brain trust, while I was a drafted slave in their army, and his were in a few more digits than were mine.

"um

MIT Professor Noam Chomsky's Ties to the Military (continued) by BOB FELDMAN

S. military.

"...He was...interviewed by laboratory director Jerome Wiesner for the position...Chomsky was hired as a full-time faculty member, which meant that he was required to spend half his time working in the research lab...Here, his ASPECTS OF THE THEORY OF SYNTAX was hatched...The funding for the research published in ASPECTS was provided by `the Joint Services Electronics Program (U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force), the Electronics Systems Division of the U.S. Air Force, the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and NASA..." (from NOAM CHOMSKY: A Life of Dissent by Robert Barsky).

Jerome Weisner later became the head of JFK's Science Advisory Committee during the early 1960s; and according to the 1965 annual report of the Ford Foundation-subsidized Institute for Defense Analyses Pentagon weapons-research think-tank, Jerome Weisner was an Adviser to IDA's Jason Division group of university professors who performed counter-insurgency, Vietnam War-related weapons research every summer during the 1960s Viet Nam War Era.

When students shut down Columbia University in 1968 in support of the demand that Columbia resign its institutional membership in IDA, MIT Professor Chomsky constructed a left anti-war rationalization for opposing the Columbia student revolt - but he did not disclose at the time that an IDA Jason Division consultant, Jerome Weisner, was the person who hired him as an MIT professor and military lab researcher during the McCarthy Era.

As Barsky also notes in his NOAM CHOMSKY: A Life of Dissent book: "While he admired the challenge to the universities' that the students were so vehemently presenting, Chomsky thought their rebellions werelargely misguided,' and he `criticized [them] as they were in progress at Berkeley (1966) and Columbia (1968) particularly." (Here I want to intervene to remind you that this public "criticism" was offered up when students were getting their heads bashed in by cops on these campuses, and their arrests, unlike Choomsky's pre arranged theatrics, were generally quite rough and unrehearsed, and more than symbolic.- SLM- http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/remembering-columbia-1968/)

Today, of course, MIT is still the 12th-largest recipient of U.S. Air Force war research contracts and among the top recipients of U.S. Air Force war research contracts.

Also, there doesn't appear to be any reference to the $350,000 Inamori Foundation/Kyoto Prize grant that was given to MIT Professor Chomsky in the late 1980s, in the index of the Barsky biography of him.

The reference to the military links is also in CAMPUS, INC.: Corporate Power in the Ivory Tower, edited by Geoffry D. White,. In an interview in the last chapter, MIT Professor Chomsky says: "...The universities did receive large-scale subsidies, quite often under the cover of defense.

"I happened to be on a committee that was set up to investigate these matters about thirty years ago. It was the first such committee for me as a result of student activism that was concerned about the reliance of MIT on military spending, what it meant, and so on. So there was a faculty/student committee set up and I was asked to be on it, and I think it was the firstreview ever of MIT fundidng...My memory is that at that time, about half of MIT's income came from two military laboratories. These were secret laboratories. One was Lincoln Labs and one then called the I Labs, now the Draper Labs, which at the time was working on guidance systems for intercontinental missiles and that sort of thing. These were secret labs and that was approximately half of the income. And, of course, that income in all kinds of ways filtered into the university through library funds and health funds and so on. Nobody knew the bookkeeping details and nobody cared much, but it was an indirect subsidy to the university.

"The other half, the academic budget, I think it was about 90 percent Pentagon funded at that time. And I personally was right in the middle of it. I was in a military lab. If you take a look at my early publications,they all say something about Air Force, Navy, and so on, because I was in a military lab, the Research Lab for Electronics. But in fact, even if you were in the music department, you were, in effect, being funded by the Pentagon because there wouldn't have been a music department unless therewas funding for, say, electrical engineering. If there was, then you coulddribble some off to the music department. So, in fact, everybody wasPentagon funded no matter whatever the bookkeeping notices said.

"Well, it's important to recognize that during that period, the university was extremely free. The lab where I was working, the research lab for electronics, was also one of the centers of anti-Vietnam War resistance. We were organizing national tax resistance and the support groups for draft resistance were based there to a large extent. I mean, I, myself, was in a jail repeatedly at the time. It didn't make any difference. The Pentagon didn't care. In fact, they didn't care at all as far as I knew.

"Their function, they understood very well, is to provide the cover for the development of the science and technology in the future so that the corporate system can profit.

GW: So they were just too big and powerful to be threatened. You were too minor of a threat?

MIT Professor Chomsky: "They just didn't care. What happened at the administrative level I didn't know, but nothing ever got to us. I hadperfectly good relations with the administration. In fact, I'd tell them if I knew I was going to get arrested. I had no particular interest in embarrassing them, but it didn't matter.

GW: Okay, but before things started shifting more and more to corporate funding, are you saying that when the funding came from the Pentagon it was completely `free'?

MIT Professor Chomsky: "Overwhelmingly it was free. You could do pretty much waht you wanted. And there was nothing secret on campus. In fact, we investigated secrecy specifically in the committee. Although it was regarded in the government as military-related work, there was virtually nothing that was secret. In fact, the parts that were secret were mostly an impediment to research. It wasn't because anybody wanted it (secrecy), it was just some technical detail that hadn't been ironed out. You could do what you wanted in your personal and political life, and also in your academic and professional life, wihtin a broad range. It [MIT] must've been one of the most free universities in the world.

GW: Who had access to the results of all this work and research?

MIT Professor Chomsky: "But that's a joke. I remember a discussion once with the head of the instrumentation lab, which was the lab that was working on guidance stystems for intercontinental missiles. Of course it was all classified, but he said that from his point of view, he woul be perfectly happy to declassify everything and give the books to the Russians and the Chinese. He said they can't do anything with them anyway. They don't have the industrial capacity to use the technology that we're developing. So thewhole effect of the classification system was to impede communication amongthe American scientists.

GW: With what result?

MIT Professor Chomsky: "Well, nothing, I mean, they kept that system classified and sort of spun it off, it's now a secret lab, independent ofMIT. But, in answer to your question, right now, for example, there's anagency in the Pentagon, DARPA, the Defense Advance Research Project Agency,which has been the center of innovation for many years. It's where theInternet comes from. .."

Of course, what MIT's Chomsky is failing to disclose in this interview is that if you check out MIT's web site and the Draper Lab web site, the military research that's going on today at MIT LIncoln Laboratory and Draper Lab is related to space warfare technology development.

And DARPA is more about developing the weapons technology that's been used during the last few years than just doing "Internet" research.

The MIT LIncoln Laboratory web site states, for instance: "MIT Lincoln Laboratory's Suface Surveillance Program develops advanced technology for detecting and identifying vehicles and facilities on and beneath the surfacein wide-area, heavily cluttered and electronically hostile battlefields. MIT Lincoln Laboratory has developed clutter cancellation technology that isused in today's airborne surveillance systems...We are developing technologycapable of detecting and tracking moving targets that are partially or fullyobscured by foliage."

And Draper Lab President Vincent Vitto said in 2001: "Draper's core work remains focused on the development of innovative solutions for theDepartment of Defense's future technology needs.... These areas includeprecision targeting and weapons systems..."

MIT Professor Chomsky's ties to the military during the McCarthy era of the 1950s By Bob Feldman

[-] 2 points by flip (7102) 2 years ago

you are a simpleton. we can walk through mit funding and all your bullshit later. now post chosmky's record of war resistance and how he almost went to jail - when nobody else spoke out. you should stop reading these people - this is horseshit - As Barsky also notes in his NOAM CHOMSKY: A Life of Dissent book: "While he admired the challenge to the universities' that the students were so vehemently presenting, Chomsky thought their rebellions werelargely misguided,' and he `criticized [them] as they were in progress at Berkeley (1966) and Columbia (1968) particularly." (Here I want to intervene to remind you that this public "criticism" was offered up when students were getting their heads bashed in by cops on these campuses, and their arrests, unlike Choomsky's pre arranged theatrics, were generally quite rough and unrehearsed, and more than symbolic.- SLM- http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/remembering-columbia-1968/) - i know too much about this to be taken in by whoever wrote this - go back and look at the record - he and those involved have spoken about it extensively - your writer here is either a liar or a fool. read howard zinn or norman mailer on war resistance and chomsky - you have been duped.

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Why not enlighten us? Chomsky wasn't cashing Pentagon checks and working in a Pentagon funded laboratory when he "criticized" (attacked) the brave students who were protesting exactly that sort of crap?

[-] 1 points by flip (7102) 2 years ago

it is nonsense as anyone who is old enough to remember knows. noam was organizing draft resistance and was looking at jail time in the early 1960's - read his work and not just the shits who want to discredit him - not sure why? read "american power and the new mandarians" - written in 1968 - stop asking me to do the work for you! just a bit from the old man. ....On Resistance Noam Chomsky The New York Review of Books, December 7, 1967 Several weeks after the demonstrations in Washington, I am still trying to sort out my impressions of a week whose quality is difficult to capture or express. Perhaps some personal reflections may be useful to others who share my instinctive distaste for activism, but who find themselves edging toward an unwanted but almost inevitable crisis.

For many of the participants, the Washington demonstrations symbolized the transition "from dissent to resistance." I will return to this slogan and its meaning, but I want to make clear at the outset that I do feel it to be not only accurate with respect to the mood of the demonstrations, but, properly interpreted, appropriate to the present state of protest against the war. There is an irresistable dynamics to such protest. One may begin by writing articles and giving speeches about the war, by helping, in many ways, to create an atmosphere of concern and outrage. A courageous few will turn to direct action, refusing to take their place alongside the "good Germans" we have all learned to despise. Some will be forced to this decision when they are called up for military service. The dissenting Senators, writers, and professors will watch as young men refuse to serve in the Armed Forces, in a war that they detest. What then? Can those who write and speak against the war take refuge in the fact that they have not urged or encouraged draft resistance, but have merely helped to develop a climate of opinion in which any decent person will want to refuse to take part in a miserable war? It's a very thin line. Nor is it very easy to watch from a position of safety while others are forced to take a grim and painful step. The fact is that most of the 1000 draft cards turned in to the Justice Department on October 20th came from men who can escape military service, but who insisted on sharing the fate of those who are less privileged. In such ways the circle of resistance widens. Quite apart from this, no one can fail to see that to the extent that he restricts his protest, to the extent that he rejects actions that are open to him, he accepts complicity in what the Government does. Some will act on this realization, posing sharply a moral issue that no person of conscience can evade.

On October 16th on the Boston Common I listened as Howard Zinn explained why he felt ashamed to be an American. I watched as several hundred young men, some of them my students, made a terrible decision which no young person should have to face: to sever their connection with the Selective Service System. The week ended, the following Monday, with a quiet discussion in Cambridge in which I heard estimates of the nuclear megatonnage that would be necessary to "take out" North Vietnam ("some will find this shocking, but..."; "no civilian in the Government is suggesting this, to my knowledge..."; "let's not use emotional words like 'destruction' "; etc.), and listened to a leading expert on Soviet affairs who explained how the men in the Kremlin are watching very carefully to determine whether wars of national liberation can succeed -- if so, they will support them all over the world. (Try pointing out to such an expert that on these assumptions, if the men in the Kremlin are rational, they will surely support dozens of such wars right now, since at a small cost they can confound the American military and tear our society to shreds -- you will be told that you don't understand the Russian soul.)

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Noam, well paid pentagon brainstruster ,doubled as "resistance leader." This is how dumb the sheeple are. they buy shit like that!

[-] 1 points by flip (7102) 2 years ago

i don't get why there are people here, who claim to be ows supporters and trash the man - i understand why the right hates him but why the lies here - unless it is all from that fool thrashymaque

[-] 0 points by JoanWinters (13) 2 years ago

i don't get why there are people here, who claim to be ows supporters and trash the man - i understand why the right hates him but why the lies here - unless it is all from that fool thrashymaque

Flip, conspiracy theorists lie. That's what they do. Most of their lies aren't even intentional. It's just that they don't have a clue on how to do any research.

[-] 1 points by flip (7102) 2 years ago

i don't know what you are saying here - are you against all conspiracy theories and those who promote them. who are you talking about?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I've seen "manufacturing consent" and would recommend it

We are siamese if you please

I don't know what's be referred to above

so I can't say if it is true

[-] -1 points by ClaraSprings (91) 2 years ago

ShubeLMorgan2, why did you change your name?

[-] 0 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Okay, any post from now on that is signed by ShubeLMorgan2 in fact comes from the entity we call "Thrashymaque" or "Thrash". ShubeLMorgan2 has left the building.

[-] 1 points by flip (7102) 2 years ago

does that mean that you now understand who chomsky was back then

[-] 1 points by ClaraSprings (91) 2 years ago

Naom Chomsky is against conspiracy theories. Plain and simple. Every educated person is.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Okay, any post from now on that is signed by ShubeLMorgan2 in fact comes from the entity we call "Thrashymaque" or "Thrash". ShubeLMorgan2 has left the building.

[-] 0 points by EuroBoy (4) 2 years ago

Truthers are hurting OWS. Their buffooneries should not be allowed on this forum. They are mentally ill conspiracy theorists who have nothing to show after more than 10 years of "research".

[-] 0 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Thrashy: "Truthers are hurting OWS. "

Then attend a GA and reprimand them for having the notorious "truther" poet and musician Immortal Technique perform at their May Day rally.

[-] 0 points by regimechange (15) 2 years ago

Regardless of who brought the three towers down or how, than can be no question that 9/11 was the enabling event in this timeline:

FREEDOM > PNAC > 9/11 > AUMF > PATRIOT ACT > CITIZENS UNITED > NDAA 2012 > HR347 > HR658 > SOPA/PIPA/ACTA > EEA > FASCISM

http://open.salon.com/blog/watchingfrogsboil/2012/01/13/freedom_to_fascism_redux_a_timeline_of_recent_us_history

[-] 0 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Thrashy: "Truthers are hurting OWS. "

Then attend a GA and reprimand them for having the notorious "truther" poet and musician Immortal Technique perform at their May Day rally.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by EuroBoy (4) 2 years ago

So what? That doesn't have any bearing on who planned and carried out the 911 attack.

[-] -2 points by regimechange (15) 2 years ago

That has every bearing on who had a motive for - and more importantly who benefited the most from - the 9/11 attacks:

http://suzieqq.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/billofrights.jpg