Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa:
October 9, 2001 3:55 PM Subscribe
Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa: "The main justification for waging this war has been totally fabricated. The American people have been deliberately and consciously misled by their government into supporting a major military adventure which affects our collective future."
NOT Good to know Chomsky has disciples.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:11 PM on October 9, 2001
posted by ParisParamus at 4:11 PM on October 9, 2001
Wow, someone from where I live is stiring up a fuss. I am exhilerated. OK, maybe not, but it's an interesting read — to say the least.
posted by Dark Messiah at 4:16 PM on October 9, 2001
posted by Dark Messiah at 4:16 PM on October 9, 2001
Not interesting to me. Shows the negative side of the tenure system.
posted by Postroad at 4:18 PM on October 9, 2001
posted by Postroad at 4:18 PM on October 9, 2001
Total crackpot.
So Bin Laden is an active CIA operative who knows too much, so he must be eliminated. So the CIA frames him for the destruction of the WTC. The entire congress (who are in on it) go along to cover up their own involvement.
Suddenly it's all clear.
posted by y6y6y6 at 4:19 PM on October 9, 2001
So Bin Laden is an active CIA operative who knows too much, so he must be eliminated. So the CIA frames him for the destruction of the WTC. The entire congress (who are in on it) go along to cover up their own involvement.
Suddenly it's all clear.
posted by y6y6y6 at 4:19 PM on October 9, 2001
I don't see any refutations here...just a little guilt by typo and association with Chomsky, no doubt part of some people's deep informal logic structures.
I think a lot of his points are valid. US foreign policy has created monsters and it looks like the 'current situation' will produce more.
I would have like to see some constructive points (How to improve foreign policy - i.e. no deals with devils) along with the critique.
posted by srboisvert at 4:19 PM on October 9, 2001
I think a lot of his points are valid. US foreign policy has created monsters and it looks like the 'current situation' will produce more.
I would have like to see some constructive points (How to improve foreign policy - i.e. no deals with devils) along with the critique.
posted by srboisvert at 4:19 PM on October 9, 2001
here is what the good Prof has to say in Pravda, the Russian govt paper:
http://english.pravda.ru/usa/2001/08/13/12386.html
posted by Postroad at 4:23 PM on October 9, 2001
http://english.pravda.ru/usa/2001/08/13/12386.html
posted by Postroad at 4:23 PM on October 9, 2001
Sounds like another cracked-out conspiracy theory. Haven't we had enough of these?
What really irks me about these writers is their willingness to completely accept some sources at face value and completely reject other sources as having no value whatsoever. Yes, the Clinton administration allowed Iran to arm the Bosnian army. No, that does not mean that Clinton controlled Osama bin Laden. (Agh.) Besides, it sounds like this guy has an agenda: to link Bosnia, Kosovo, and Osama bin Laden - something the Serbia has been trying to do (and has been ignored) since September 11.
posted by LAM at 4:23 PM on October 9, 2001
What really irks me about these writers is their willingness to completely accept some sources at face value and completely reject other sources as having no value whatsoever. Yes, the Clinton administration allowed Iran to arm the Bosnian army. No, that does not mean that Clinton controlled Osama bin Laden. (Agh.) Besides, it sounds like this guy has an agenda: to link Bosnia, Kosovo, and Osama bin Laden - something the Serbia has been trying to do (and has been ignored) since September 11.
posted by LAM at 4:23 PM on October 9, 2001
There's no doubt that US Foreign Policy is often short-sighted. There's no conspiracy. Just an prolonged lapse of judgement and a whole lotta band-aids.
posted by magnificentsven at 4:29 PM on October 9, 2001
posted by magnificentsven at 4:29 PM on October 9, 2001
I would have like to see some constructive points (How to improve foreign policy - i.e. no deals with devils)
And I'd like to see an end to world hunger. As cliche as it is, it's sometimes true that the devil is the only one open for business.
The real world isn't as simple and pure as it seems from a university campus.
posted by gd779 at 4:39 PM on October 9, 2001
And I'd like to see an end to world hunger. As cliche as it is, it's sometimes true that the devil is the only one open for business.
The real world isn't as simple and pure as it seems from a university campus.
posted by gd779 at 4:39 PM on October 9, 2001
Fred/Postroad, Pravda has not been part of the Russian government since 1991, and the national paper went bankrupt in 1996; the name is being used by regionals, and the English version is an internet-only variant run by its former editor.
(I've seen Free Republicans make the same mistake! They also make obvious jokes about the Moscow Times, which is an English-langauge newspaper serving the international business community with an excellent reputation. They don't even see how its existence is a testament to the achievements they attribute to Reagan.)
posted by dhartung at 4:46 PM on October 9, 2001
(I've seen Free Republicans make the same mistake! They also make obvious jokes about the Moscow Times, which is an English-langauge newspaper serving the international business community with an excellent reputation. They don't even see how its existence is a testament to the achievements they attribute to Reagan.)
posted by dhartung at 4:46 PM on October 9, 2001
I'm not convinced of the extent of the connections in this article, but one pattern is definitely clear:
1. CIA backs Manuel Noriega.
Noriega goes bad.
Military is sent to get Noriega, Enemy Number One.
2. CIA backs Saddam Hussein.
Hussein goes bad.
Military is sent to get Hussein, Enemy Number One.
3. CIA backs Osama bin Laden.
bin Laden goes bad.
Military is sent to get bin Laden, Enemy Number One.
Maybe we need a new game plan.
posted by billder at 5:06 PM on October 9, 2001
1. CIA backs Manuel Noriega.
Noriega goes bad.
Military is sent to get Noriega, Enemy Number One.
2. CIA backs Saddam Hussein.
Hussein goes bad.
Military is sent to get Hussein, Enemy Number One.
3. CIA backs Osama bin Laden.
bin Laden goes bad.
Military is sent to get bin Laden, Enemy Number One.
Maybe we need a new game plan.
posted by billder at 5:06 PM on October 9, 2001
I agree.. poke some holes in his logic, don't just dismiss it out of hand. There's too much of that going around lately.
posted by Hildago at 5:10 PM on October 9, 2001
posted by Hildago at 5:10 PM on October 9, 2001
What a tower of non-sequiters.
The whole piece is a good example of the genetic fallacy:
Because Osama began as a creature of the CIA, he IS essentially a creature of the CIA.
posted by crunchburger at 5:14 PM on October 9, 2001
The whole piece is a good example of the genetic fallacy:
Because Osama began as a creature of the CIA, he IS essentially a creature of the CIA.
posted by crunchburger at 5:14 PM on October 9, 2001
Dhartung: thanks. and thnaks too for assosiating me with the free republicans. I have enough problems without that one tossed in! My subscription to Pravda ran out years ago so I did not know they went the capitalist route. I may subscribe again now.
posted by Postroad at 5:34 PM on October 9, 2001
posted by Postroad at 5:34 PM on October 9, 2001
the genetic fallacy: Because Osama began as a creature of the CIA, he IS essentially a creature of the CIA.
Very true: although I'd like to do a comparative reading of the CIA's covert ops manual and "Al-Qaeda in a Nutshell".
posted by holgate at 5:48 PM on October 9, 2001
Very true: although I'd like to do a comparative reading of the CIA's covert ops manual and "Al-Qaeda in a Nutshell".
posted by holgate at 5:48 PM on October 9, 2001
Yeah, we need to rebuild teh CIA since they are obviously bad judges of character.
Right now we're doing the same thing. We're backing various countries and groups who are going to be the next enemy number one in ten years.
posted by eljuanbobo at 5:54 PM on October 9, 2001
Right now we're doing the same thing. We're backing various countries and groups who are going to be the next enemy number one in ten years.
posted by eljuanbobo at 5:54 PM on October 9, 2001
So, bin Laden's past and present statements that all non-Islamic men, women and children are the enemies of Islam and should be eliminated are supposed to be invalidated by the statements of a professor of economics?
For me it doesn't really matter whether or not Osama had anything to do with 9/11. Terrorists have been allowed to develop their craft by a combination of complicity on the part of some nations and complacency on the part of the rest for quite some time. They do not recognize laws or borders, they do not care who they kill or how much havoc they cause and their only goal is the supression of cultures and idea other than their own. Does anybody really feel that the US government is more vile and repressive than people like bin Laden? I sure don't.
posted by RevGreg at 6:02 PM on October 9, 2001
For me it doesn't really matter whether or not Osama had anything to do with 9/11. Terrorists have been allowed to develop their craft by a combination of complicity on the part of some nations and complacency on the part of the rest for quite some time. They do not recognize laws or borders, they do not care who they kill or how much havoc they cause and their only goal is the supression of cultures and idea other than their own. Does anybody really feel that the US government is more vile and repressive than people like bin Laden? I sure don't.
posted by RevGreg at 6:02 PM on October 9, 2001
Wow, I mean, he's close to the truth, but he's not quite there yet. Fortunately, thanks to some clever FOIA requests, I know the real story:
Here it goes. This starts back in 1969, when Aliens from Vega helped us fake the moon landing. While on earth, a deal was worked out for them to give us access to advanced technology in exchange for Pet Rocks. (Since satellites weren't available to them yet, Major League Baseball was using Pet Rocks for their mind control back then, and the Vega folks were intrigued by the technology.)
Anyway, fastforward to the late 1970's. So, the Rand Corporation, by request of the CIA, sends word to their group president of regional operations operations in Moscow, Leonid Brezhnev, to invade Afghanistan.
See, the US Armed Forces has finally got some prototypes of the Vega weapons ready for deployment (it took a while to integrate the new technology, yeah I know) and they need a place to test them, but don't want to do it to openly as the US Army. So, the CIA asks their buddies, the Illuminati to go fight Russia in Afghanistan (unbeknownst to the Soviet Division of Rand, sneaky sneaky) so they can see how well the new weapons do in combat.
The Illuminati's chief of operations, Osama Bin Laden, says that he'd been happy to, and takes delivery of the new prototype weapons and starts to kick the Soviet's butt. In return for the help, the Rand Corporation promises to give China and Australia to Osama as a gift.
Things were going well until the Trilateral Commission (TC) got involved though. I mean, whoa, who didn't see that one coming!.....
Ok, that's enough of that, I could go on for hours. :P Anyway, we've known for a long time that Osama is linked to the CIA, and that Osama is linked to all sorts of terrible people worldwide--whether in Serbia or wherever else. We've equipped and supported in the past him to do jobs, and somehow it seemed like good idea at the time. Very likely we were wrong in several cases, and we should definitely consider this in the future.
To somehow come to the conclusion that the US is somehow complicit in the WTC attack because we supported him at a time when he wasn't openly and loudly calling out for our blood is ludicrous. State the facts, sure. Use those facts as a base to make logical arguments about how we should behave in the future. But don't start drawing outrageous conclusions from them--which I think is exactly what this gentleman did in his piece.
posted by Swifty at 6:05 PM on October 9, 2001
Here it goes. This starts back in 1969, when Aliens from Vega helped us fake the moon landing. While on earth, a deal was worked out for them to give us access to advanced technology in exchange for Pet Rocks. (Since satellites weren't available to them yet, Major League Baseball was using Pet Rocks for their mind control back then, and the Vega folks were intrigued by the technology.)
Anyway, fastforward to the late 1970's. So, the Rand Corporation, by request of the CIA, sends word to their group president of regional operations operations in Moscow, Leonid Brezhnev, to invade Afghanistan.
See, the US Armed Forces has finally got some prototypes of the Vega weapons ready for deployment (it took a while to integrate the new technology, yeah I know) and they need a place to test them, but don't want to do it to openly as the US Army. So, the CIA asks their buddies, the Illuminati to go fight Russia in Afghanistan (unbeknownst to the Soviet Division of Rand, sneaky sneaky) so they can see how well the new weapons do in combat.
The Illuminati's chief of operations, Osama Bin Laden, says that he'd been happy to, and takes delivery of the new prototype weapons and starts to kick the Soviet's butt. In return for the help, the Rand Corporation promises to give China and Australia to Osama as a gift.
Things were going well until the Trilateral Commission (TC) got involved though. I mean, whoa, who didn't see that one coming!.....
To somehow come to the conclusion that the US is somehow complicit in the WTC attack because we supported him at a time when he wasn't openly and loudly calling out for our blood is ludicrous. State the facts, sure. Use those facts as a base to make logical arguments about how we should behave in the future. But don't start drawing outrageous conclusions from them--which I think is exactly what this gentleman did in his piece.
posted by Swifty at 6:05 PM on October 9, 2001
holgate:
Check 'Al-Quaeda For Dummies' bundled with 'Dave Barry's Guide to Eradicating Evil' also.
posted by crunchburger at 6:15 PM on October 9, 2001
Check 'Al-Quaeda For Dummies' bundled with 'Dave Barry's Guide to Eradicating Evil' also.
posted by crunchburger at 6:15 PM on October 9, 2001
And I'd like to see an end to world hunger.
We could end world hunger tomorrow, if we started eating one another (not a permanent solution, admittedly).
It's all what you're willing to do in exchange for what you get in return....
posted by rushmc at 6:18 PM on October 9, 2001
We could end world hunger tomorrow, if we started eating one another (not a permanent solution, admittedly).
It's all what you're willing to do in exchange for what you get in return....
posted by rushmc at 6:18 PM on October 9, 2001
US foreign policy has created monsters and it looks like the 'current situation' will produce more.
Or, the world is replete with (1) evil depraved people who have to be dealt with, even supported, to defend against (2) other, even more evil, dangerous people. It's not our fault that either (1) or (2) are out there. And it's not even clear (1) can be distinguished from (2). So stop trying to create excuses for horrible people.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:19 PM on October 9, 2001
Or, the world is replete with (1) evil depraved people who have to be dealt with, even supported, to defend against (2) other, even more evil, dangerous people. It's not our fault that either (1) or (2) are out there. And it's not even clear (1) can be distinguished from (2). So stop trying to create excuses for horrible people.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:19 PM on October 9, 2001
I don't see any refutations here...just a little guilt by typo and association with Chomsky, no doubt part of some people's deep informal logic structures.
Some people aren't worth taking seriously long enough to refute them (and this guy deserves a spot near the front of that line). Would you expect a thoughtful critique of this story?
posted by rcade at 8:57 PM on October 9, 2001
Some people aren't worth taking seriously long enough to refute them (and this guy deserves a spot near the front of that line). Would you expect a thoughtful critique of this story?
posted by rcade at 8:57 PM on October 9, 2001
Wait. There is no doubt about the Kosovo/Bin Laden connection. Witness this article. In Bosnia what is not mentioned in the article is that the local Muslim population did not welcome the "Afghani" mentality and OBL's people were slowly removed from Bosnia, a process still under way. So, yeah, his implying that OBL is still a CIA agent is far-fetched, but this statement is not even debatable:
Whereas there is no evidence that agencies of the US government "aided the terrorist attacks" on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, there is ample and detailed evidence that agencies of the US government as well as NATO, have since the end of the Cold War continued to "harbor such organizations".
posted by talos at 1:28 AM on October 10, 2001
Whereas there is no evidence that agencies of the US government "aided the terrorist attacks" on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, there is ample and detailed evidence that agencies of the US government as well as NATO, have since the end of the Cold War continued to "harbor such organizations".
posted by talos at 1:28 AM on October 10, 2001
sorry guys, but you really have let me down here.
Some people aren't worth taking seriously long enough to refute them
like the 'war against terrorism' lead by the world biggest terrorist.
Does anybody really feel that the US government is more vile and repressive than people like bin Laden? I sure don't
yes, most of the world do, judging by these reactions to the 1109 attack.
if you are not willing to use minimal effort in imaging that maybe you are not the sole posessor of truth, then you leave yourself open to being accused of ignorance and arrogance.
posted by asok at 6:20 AM on October 10, 2001
Some people aren't worth taking seriously long enough to refute them
like the 'war against terrorism' lead by the world biggest terrorist.
Does anybody really feel that the US government is more vile and repressive than people like bin Laden? I sure don't
yes, most of the world do, judging by these reactions to the 1109 attack.
if you are not willing to use minimal effort in imaging that maybe you are not the sole posessor of truth, then you leave yourself open to being accused of ignorance and arrogance.
posted by asok at 6:20 AM on October 10, 2001
like the 'war against terrorism' lead by the world biggest terrorist
You're not baiting here, are you? Sheesh.
Does anybody really feel that the US government is more vile and repressive than people like bin Laden? I sure don't
yes, most of the world do, judging by these reactions to the 1109 attack.
Yeah, most of the world will believe exactly what the propagandists will tell them to believe. Does that make them right?
There's using minimal effort to imagine that we're not infallible, and then there's the coming to the conclusion that while we're not perfect (and never claimed to be), in this case, right now, we're on the side of Unambiguous Right.
posted by terceiro at 7:19 AM on October 10, 2001
You're not baiting here, are you? Sheesh.
Does anybody really feel that the US government is more vile and repressive than people like bin Laden? I sure don't
yes, most of the world do, judging by these reactions to the 1109 attack.
Yeah, most of the world will believe exactly what the propagandists will tell them to believe. Does that make them right?
There's using minimal effort to imagine that we're not infallible, and then there's the coming to the conclusion that while we're not perfect (and never claimed to be), in this case, right now, we're on the side of Unambiguous Right.
posted by terceiro at 7:19 AM on October 10, 2001
Isn't one of the mandates of the CIA to deal with dirty, bad people? I'd find it more telling of a conspiracy if the CIA had a working relationship with the Church Lady.
posted by prodigal at 7:56 AM on October 10, 2001
posted by prodigal at 7:56 AM on October 10, 2001
« Older "Man's Body Left on Front Porch After Funeral Home... | The paranoia continues....... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by rcade at 4:08 PM on October 9, 2001