Our favorite left gatekeeper on 9/11

[Ace Acme]

18. Chomsky only showed his own nonsense

Last edited Fri Nov 29, 2013, 01:16 PM - Edit history (1)

Here is his argument:

A: If the Bush team had done 9/11, they would have used Iraqis and not Saudis to do the dirty deed.

B: Only if they were stupid or crazy would they use Saudis for 9/11.

C: They are not stupid or crazy

D: Therefore they did not do 9/11.


Assumption A is just plain stupid For these reasons:

1. Iraqis were rare or absent in al Qaeda. I've never heard of even one Iraqi member of al Qaeda.
2. Iraqis would have been very difficult to recruit for an attack on the USA, because they would have known that the response would be devastating attacks on their homeland. Saudis, by contrast, could be very confident that Bush would never attack their homeland.
3. Framing Iraqis would be difficult. Friends of Iraq would be very skeptical.
4. Using Saudis gave the Dominators the excuse to bomb many countries (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, AND Iraq) while use of Iraqis would only get a license to bomb Iraq
5. Using Saudis gives the plotters the cooperation of the Saudi government, while no cooperation could be expected from the Iraqi government

Assumption B is just plain stupid because it ignores all the reasons to use Saudis for 9/11.

Assumption C is just plain stupid because it is contrary to evidence. They were demonstrably stupid and crazy even if they didn't do 9/11--and if they did do 9/11, then they were even crazier (how stupid--as opposed to treasonously malign--is open to discussion).

Conclusion D: is not justified.


I don't have to prove any CTs at all. I only need to shoot holes in the silly arguments you guys put up in defense of the prevailing myths you are so desperate to believe.