Howard Zinn rejects 9-11 Truth

[parky76]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/howard-zinn-i-dont-care-if-911-was-an-inside-job.html

As he should. And of course, Prisonplanet calls him coward and a left-wing gatekeeper.

Even more interesting are the amazing anti-Jewish comments. Check out the one threatening to put a bullet in his head.

Man..these guys just can't make any friends can they?

[jaydeehess]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/howard-zinn-i-dont-care-if-911-was-an-inside-job.html

As he should. And of course, Prisonplanet calls him coward and a left-wing gatekeeper.

Even more interesting are the amazing anti-Jewish comments. Check out the one threatening to put a bullet in his head.

Man..these guys just can't make any friends can they?

Seven posts railing on about Zionists and/or Jews and one death threat in the first 50 responses.

[dudalb]

What else do you expect from the Truthers?
I am not a big fan of Howard Zinn by any means (I could not disagree more with his "The Free Market Is Evil" Hard Left viewpoint) but that does not excuse the viciousness of the Twoofer attack on him.

[JamesB]

Yet somehow, his name will still never be removed from Patriots Question 9/11.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html

[parky76]

i guess they have zero moderation. otherwise they would remove the hate speech and the death threat..right?

=)

by the way, Zinn's response is right on..and on target. it is the irrefutable FACT of what Bush and Cheney DID DO after 9-11, that we have to deal with.

GITMO, warrentless wiretaps, Iraq, the whole Neo-Con agenda...is what what our main target should be. not the endless, circular hypothesizing and baseless assumptions about 9-11.

who killed JFK? it really doesnt matter anymore. all that matters is the disasterous Vietnam War that followed.

[RedIbis]

Strange because when I look at the back of New Pearl Harbor Zinn says of the book, "[T]he most persuasive argument I have seen for further investigation of the Bush administration's relationship to that historic and troubling event."

Zinn doesn't hide his skepticism, he's just taken the safer Chomskeyesque position that 9/11 activism takes the focus off of other left wing priorities.

I would expect him to realize that 9/11 is the source of all that he criticizes in Bush administration foreign policy.

[Brainster]

who killed JFK? it really doesnt matter anymore. all that matters is the disasterous Vietnam War that followed.

Don't buy into the myth that JFK would not have done exactly as LBJ did on the Vietnam. My parents were active in the antiwar movement at the time and they always told me that the idea that JFK would have been different on Vietnam was a fantasy.

Yes, Zinn did endorse Griffin's book, but he appears to have come to his senses.

[parky76]

Don't buy into the myth that JFK would not have done exactly as LBJ did on the Vietnam. My parents were active in the antiwar movement at the time and they always told me that the idea that JFK would have been different on Vietnam was a fantasy.

Yes, Zinn did endorse Griffin's book, but he appears to have come to his senses.

JFK's administration rejected Operation Northwoods...but approved Operation Mongoose against Cuba and Castro.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mongoose

JFK....was NO angel.

[Horatius]

Strange because when I look at the back of New Pearl Harbor Zinn says of the book, "[T]he most persuasive argument I have seen for further investigation of the Bush administration's relationship to that historic and troubling event."



WooHoo! I get to use my professional skills again!


"Most" is an inherently ambiguous term, as it is a relative term. Without specifically defining what "most" means in any given context, we cannot ascertain what the true intention of this phrase is.

That is, if all other arguments are 0% persuasive, then an argument that is 0.1% persuasive is the "most persuasive"....which really isn't all that impressive, is it?

[RedIbis]

WooHoo! I get to use my professional skills again!


"Most" is an inherently ambiguous term, as it is a relative term. Without specifically defining what "most" means in any given context, we cannot ascertain what the true intention of this phrase is.

That is, if all other arguments are 0% persuasive, then an argument that is 0.1% persuasive is the "most persuasive"....which really isn't all that impressive, is it?

Well then I guess Zinn thinks that the official theories are 0% persuasive.

[1337m4n]

WooHoo! I get to use my professional skills again!


"Most" is an inherently ambiguous term, as it is a relative term. Without specifically defining what "most" means in any given context, we cannot ascertain what the true intention of this phrase is.

That is, if all other arguments are 0% persuasive, then an argument that is 0.1% persuasive is the "most persuasive"....which really isn't all that impressive, is it?

Your profession wouldn't happen to be Lawyer, would it?

[eromitlab]

i guess they have zero moderation. otherwise they would remove the hate speech and the death threat..right?

=)



Free speech* of all types is valued by Alex Jones's moderation team.

* - Restrictions apply. Comments supportive of government, critical of the material, critical of the posters of the material, critical of Alex Jones or his affiliates in any real or imagined fashion, straying from the official anti-government line, deemed offensive by any moderator for any reason and comprehensible by an average internet user who doesn't commonly read such nonsense are not eligible for classification as "free speech".

[Horatius]

Well then I guess Zinn thinks that the official theories are 0% persuasive.


Except that he hasn't mentioned the "official theories" at all in that quote, so assuming anything about his opinions on that basis is just you making things up.



Your profession wouldn't happen to be Lawyer, would it?


Not quite. Patent Examiner, so I do deal with legal-type language. In a Patent Claim, you're required to claim your invention as explicitly as possible, and "avoidable ambiguity" is a big no-no, so we're quite good at spotting ambiguous phrasings. Relative terms like "big", "small", "most" or "least", that are left undefined, are a common sort of such ambiguity.

Without defining what he meant by "most", that statement really tells you nothing at all. "Most" could mean anything from "infinitesimally more than 0%" to "100%", which is a range that we pretty much could have predicted even without the quote.

[mrbaracuda]

Patent Examiner

So how's that patent on the NWO-Kitty franchise coming? ;)

[Horatius]

So how's that patent on the NWO-Kitty franchise coming? ;)



That's more trademark and copyright. Although, if we can figure out how hush-a-boom works....

[mrbaracuda]

Oh, right. Ah well, I bet you're good for getting one of those, too. ;)
10% of the price of our products go to the H.P.Katt foundation

[T.A.M.]

Strange because when I look at the back of New Pearl Harbor Zinn says of the book, "[T]he most persuasive argument I have seen for further investigation of the Bush administration's relationship to that historic and troubling event."

Zinn doesn't hide his skepticism, he's just taken the safer Chomskeyesque position that 9/11 activism takes the focus off of other left wing priorities.

I would expect him to realize that 9/11 is the source of all that he criticizes in Bush administration foreign policy.

So he is a coward? You mean he knows that elements of his government helped kill 3000 innocents, but it is too hard for him to publicly stand behind this?

Nice.

TAM

[RedIbis]

So he is a coward? You mean he knows that elements of his government helped kill 3000 innocents, but it is too hard for him to publicly stand behind this?

Nice.

TAM

If he thinks that it doesn't matter whether or not 9/11 was an inside job, then yes, he's a coward. I think we can all agree that IF 9/11 is an inside job then it most definitely matters and would be the foundation of all other arguments against the Bush administration.

I don't mind restating that this left wing hedging is in fact, cowardly. By the logic of people like Zinn and Chomsky, you would think the only thing that the Bush administration has ever been honest about is 9/11, which is highly unlikely.

[T.A.M.]

Agreed. I prefer the honest truther, as misguided and wrong as I think they might be, but who is true to their convictions, over someone who has doubts, but is politically too cowardly to put their money where their mouth is.

TAM:)

[Horatius]

See what I mean about relative terms? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4204886#post4204886)

[dudalb]

Don't buy into the myth that JFK would not have done exactly as LBJ did on the Vietnam. My parents were active in the antiwar movement at the time and they always told me that the idea that JFK would have been different on Vietnam was a fantasy.

Yes, Zinn did endorse Griffin's book, but he appears to have come to his senses.

Zinn praised an anti Bush book in a knee jerk reaction, and now probably regrets is.
Knee Jerk Politics makes fools of us all.

[parky76]

Now, what would the reaction of truthers have been, if Zinn said something like "yes. 9-11 appears to have had some elements of an inside job".

instead of calling him a coward/Zionist/agent/shill/gate-keeper..they would be singing his praises and likening him to Christ almighty.

just look at how they salivate over Naomi Klein (another jew and liberal Zionist). im surprised no one proposed to her yet.

so basically...say what we like..and we worship you. say what we don't like..and we attack you.

nice. real nice.

[parky76]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WXU4eir-i8

and yet again!!! Howard Zinn rejects silly 9-11 deniers. don't they get a clue? can't they take a hint?

we...aren't...interested!!

=)

[eromitlab]

One of my favourite things about truthists. They have this tendency to, in their "confrontations", to go after people who openly come out against them rather than actually go after the stars of their fantasy conspiracy; notice all the times they heckled Bill Clinton, most after he openly and directly called them on the carpet. They even put those "lefty gatekeepers" whom they perceive as people who should push 9/11 "truth" but don't ahead of the real neocon threat they're so up in arms about.

[Gazpacho]

Yet somehow, his name will still never be removed from Patriots Question 9/11.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html
I don't see any reason, even with his recent comments, why it should be. If Zinn is embarrassed by people accurately quoting what he's said, and continues to affirm, that's his tough luck.

[Gazpacho]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WXU4eir-i8

and yet again!!! Howard Zinn rejects silly 9-11 deniers. don't they get a clue? can't they take a hint?
You're a bit hasty to call this a rejection when he clearly says that (1) he doesn't believe the standard explanation and (2) he wants another investigation. His only disagreement is about whether a new investigation is the most important thing in the world.

[RedIbis]

You're a bit hasty to call this a rejection when he clearly says that (1) he doesn't believe the standard explanation and (2) he wants another investigation. His only disagreement is about whether a new investigation is the most important thing in the world.

Well said. Some of these very left wing radical "historians" are confronting the reality that although an inside job conspiracy may not be the case, neither is the official narrative.

If anything their crime is laziness because they don't really want to go through the hard work of finding out where these trails may lead them.

[johnny karate]

If anything their crime is laziness because they don't really want to go through the hard work of finding out where these trails may lead them.

Much like Barack Obama. Oh, I forgot... when Obama ignores 9/11 Truth it's because he's a forward-thinking pragmatist.

[RedIbis]

Much like Barack Obama. Oh, I forgot... when Obama ignores 9/11 Truth it's because he's a forward-thinking pragmatist.

That's actually correct. Obama won the election precisely because he knows which battles to pick. Left wing "historians" like Chomsky and Zinn have much more leeway.

I said in some other thread, I'm glad Obama doesn't call for a new investigation, or even accounability, for that matter. He would not have won the election if he did, which was more important than the investigation, at least at this point.

[Galileo]

Zinn is a left-wing nutjob. He has slandered Jmaes Madison and other Founding Fathers. This only reinforces the truth of 9/11 Truth.

[parky76]

Howard Zinn is respected throughout the world. His condemnation of 9-11 conspiracy theories is not good for you. stop trying to spin this.

[johnny karate]

That's actually correct. Obama won the election precisely because he knows which battles to pick. Left wing "historians" like Chomsky and Zinn have much more leeway.

And much less power to actually do anything about it, so it's a wash.

I said in some other thread, I'm glad Obama doesn't call for a new investigation, or even accounability, for that matter. He would not have won the election if he did, which was more important than the investigation, at least at this point.

That statement seems to imply that Obama might initiate a new investigation at some point. Whether the implication is there or not, I highly doubt this will ever take place. And your tacit admission that 9/11 Truth is a fringe movement pretty much rejected by the mainstream demonstrates why: If America doesn't want a new investigation now, they certainly aren't going to want one in two years.

What I find curious is how Truthers such as yourself are suddenly quite content with 9/11 being swept under the rug after spending so much time proclaiming the official investigation was a whitewash.

It's interesting how solving the murders of 3,000 people suddenly becomes less compelling to you once a Democrat has been elected president.

[parky76]

Zinn is a left-wing nutjob. He has slandered Jmaes Madison and other Founding Fathers. This only reinforces the truth of 9/11 Truth.

"Oh my!! How dare anyone critisize James Madason or any other founding fathers!!

They are prophets!! They are faultless!! Anyone who attacks them is a traitor!!"

is that what you are trying to say?

why do you believe in Fascist principles?

[RedIbis]

And much less power to actually do anything about it, so it's a wash.



That statement seems to imply that Obama might initiate a new investigation at some point. Whether the implication is there or not, I highly doubt this will ever take place. And your tacit admission that 9/11 Truth is a fringe movement pretty much rejected by the mainstream demonstrates why: If America doesn't want a new investigation now, they certainly aren't going to want one in two years.

What I find curious is how Truthers such as yourself are suddenly quite content with 9/11 being swept under the rug after spending so much time proclaiming the official investigation was a whitewash.

It's interesting how solving the murders of 3,000 people suddenly becomes less compelling to you once a Democrat has been elected president.

It's not my responsibility to keep repeating my position simply because you are incapable of comprehension. Bush was the C in C on that day and Obama was a state senator. This fact renders your entire point moot.

[johnny karate]

It's not my responsibility to keep repeating my position simply because you are incapable of comprehension. Bush was the C in C on that day and Obama was a state senator. This fact renders your entire point moot.

If John McCain had been elected, would you take the same position?

[RedIbis]

If John McCain had been elected, would you take the same position?

Yes. McCain is a bit more immediate to the events since he was the one who helped get the Commission created. He also stated his position in the foreward of the pathetic Popular Mechanics piece. Still, I've been clear about whom I think bears responsibility, and he's not one of them.

Regardless, I wouldn't have expected much from him either way.

[Galileo]

Howard Zinn is respected throughout the world. His condemnation of 9-11 conspiracy theories is not good for you. stop trying to spin this.

Zinn is wacked out left wing conspiracy theorist. He think the Founding Fathers conspired to keep all the wealth in the hands of a few landowners. If that were true, would someone have talked by now?

Now he's gonna tell us about some 9/11 conspiracy by right-wing religious nuts.

[1337m4n]

It's not my responsibility to keep repeating my position simply because you are incapable of comprehension. Bush was the C in C on that day and Obama was a state senator. This fact renders your entire point moot.

Doesn't matter if Obama was a meter-maid on that day. You've made it pretty clear in the past that you wanted a New InvestigationTM. Are you now saying that you're okay with it never happening?

Not that changing your mind is a bad thing; I'm just curious as to why.

The way I see it, it doesn't matter who was president on 9/11. If 9/11 was worth re-investigating a month ago, then it's worth re-investigating today. Wouldn't you agree?

[RedIbis]

Doesn't matter if Obama was a meter-maid on that day. You've made it pretty clear in the past that you wanted a New InvestigationTM. Are you now saying that you're okay with it never happening?

Not that changing your mind is a bad thing; I'm just curious as to why.

The way I see it, it doesn't matter who was president on 9/11. If 9/11 was worth re-investigating a month ago, then it's worth re-investigating today. Wouldn't you agree?

I doubt you could actually come up with a quote of mine saying that I want a New Investigation, let alone one sanctioned or created by any occupant of the White House.

Stop attempting to articulate my position when it's clearly beyond you.

[Gazpacho]

Well said. Some of these very left wing radical "historians" are confronting the reality that although an inside job conspiracy may not be the case, neither is the official narrative.
If you thought my remark was in any sense expressing doubt as to the basic accuracy of the standard explanation of 9/11, then you are sadly deluded. I am just not willing to let Zinn off the hook. He's yours and you can keep him.

Zinn, in his own writings, is a master of what David Hackett Fisher called the "furtive fallacy," which is similar to a conspiracy theory but reverses the reasoning. Instead of using facts to prove the conspiracy, you assume a conspiracy and use it to support your version of the facts. It is not surprising that he and the CTs would find some point of agreement.

[RedIbis]

If you thought my remark was in any sense expressing doubt as to the basic accuracy of the standard explanation of 9/11, then you are sadly deluded. I am just not willing to let Zinn off the hook. He's yours and you can keep him.



He's not mine and I don't want him. I know how important taking sides is, but it's really not that simple.

[dtugg]

I doubt you could actually come up with a quote of mine saying that I want a New Investigation, let alone one sanctioned or created by any occupant of the White House.

Stop attempting to articulate my position when it's clearly beyond you.

So you don't want a new investigation? Is this right? You are perfectly OK with the truth behind the murders of 3,000 people never coming out and the perps never being punished? I mean, Obama wasn't president when it happened, so it's not like he owes it to the American people to find out the truth about the worst crime to ever take place on American soil.

[stateofgrace]

I said in some other thread, I'm glad Obama doesn't call for a new investigation, or even accounability, for that matter. He would not have won the election if he did, which was more important than the investigation, at least at this point.


That’s an interesting statement. I'm sure I read it right but can you just clarify it, please? Are you seriously suggesting that the getting Obama into office is more important that uncovering the truth behind the mass murder of 3000 people?

Yes or no, will do.

[dtugg]

That’s an interesting statement. I'm sure I read it right but can you just clarify it, please? Are you seriously suggesting that the getting Obama into office is more important that uncovering the truth behind the mass murder of 3000 people?

Yes or no, will do.


And of course, Obama has already won, so I don't know what the excuse will be if he doesn't do it. Perhaps it will be after he wins in 2012 that he will find out the truth.

[twinstead]

Well, duh, everybody knows that a sitting president only finds out about the GOOD stuff during his second term.

[johnny karate]

I doubt you could actually come up with a quote of mine saying that I want a New Investigation, let alone one sanctioned or created by any occupant of the White House.

Stop attempting to articulate my position when it's clearly beyond you.

I doubt anyone could come up with a quote of you stating anything concrete regarding 9/11 since you lack the intellectual courage to actually make a case. Nonetheless, your opinion of the accuracy of the official investigation has been made abundantly clear.

And your hypocrisy regarding the response you expect from the U.S government regarding future investigations has also been made abundantly clear:

If you dislike the president: 3,000 people were murdered and no one knows why or how. Injustice!

If you like the president: We need to move forward.

And what's hilarious is you think we represent the deluded masses.

[johnny karate]

Yes. McCain is a bit more immediate to the events since he was the one who helped get the Commission created. He also stated his position in the foreward of the pathetic Popular Mechanics piece. Still, I've been clear about whom I think bears responsibility, and he's not one of them.

Regardless, I wouldn't have expected much from him either way.

Good to know.

A new sheriff was just elected in my county. I'm sure he'll be thrilled to know he's not responsible for any crime that took placed before he took office. It should make his workload that much easier.

[Pardalis]

RedIbis has been at this for a year here, trying to promote the 9/11 "conspiracy", but now that Obama is elected he's finally realized how pathetic, useless and utterly irrelevant the truth movement really is.

Are we witnessing RedIbis slowly walking away from 9/11?

[RedIbis]

Challenge:

Find a single quote of mine where I say I expect any new investigation to come from the gov't, the most recent administration or the new one.

Since that won't happen, what the hell is the point of suggesting that I'm letting Obama off the hook?

[dtugg]

Challenge:

Find a single quote of mine where I say I expect any new investigation to come from the gov't, the most recent administration or the new one.

Since that won't happen, what the hell is the point of suggesting that I'm letting Obama off the hook?

Are you OK with the murder of 3,000 people going unsolved forever?

[WildCat]

Are you OK with the murder of 3,000 people going unsolved forever?
Apparently he is. RedIbis will never take a stand, never do a damned thing except whine about how all the investigatons to date have been "preposterous" but he won't ever say what makes him think so. It's just not in his makeup to support his POV with logic and reason.

The only thing RedIbis can do is argue from his own incredulity and ignorance, and he's barely able to do even that.

[Pardalis]

Challenge:

Find a single quote of mine where I say I expect any new investigation to come from the gov't,

Then who are you asking to do this new investigation?

"We want a new investigation" doesn't cut it.

You are deliberately stalling methinks.

[parky76]

independant, non-partisan, non-government employees, non-NWO member,...truther-folk. =)

[parky76]

Are you OK with the murder of 3,000 people going unsolved forever?

"unsolved"????

we know who did it. Al Jazeera knows who did it. even YOU know who did it.

this isn't about the "truth" anymore. i don't know what exactly this is about..maybe attention...hating Bush..hating the USA..hating Israel..but it CERTAINLY is no longer about the truth.

[thesyntaxera]

i don't know what exactly this is about..maybe attention...hating Bush..hating the USA..hating Israel..but it CERTAINLY is no longer about the truth.

Ego. That is my guess anyway. Some people, like Alex Jones for example, are so wrapped up in their cult of personality to even be bothered with actually knowing what actually happened. Their version of events is more important to them. In his case, he probably needs the truth movement and his websites, and radio show, and fans, for self validation. If not for them he may have gone completely bonkers. It's typical cult behavior, all that is missing is the "patriots retreat" in the jungles of guyana. Oh, and Flavor-Aid.

As far as Zinn is concerned, I have noticed a few people refer to him as being a left wing nut job...or whatever.

I have had the pleasure of seeing him speak in person, and at 86 his intellect and eloquoence of speaking are quite a bit better than what most people type here. The trick to relating to anything he writes is to be aware that he is as aware of his bias as you are. He is a humanist, and like he says "You can't be neutral." Everything he writes is from the slant that if it hurts people, it's not good. If that makes him a lefty nut job then cool, that makes you some sort of rationalizing wussball centrist.

[parky76]

Ego. That is my guess anyway. Some people, like Alex Jones for example, are so wrapped up in their cult of personality to even be bothered with actually knowing what actually happened. Their version of events is more important to them. In his case, he probably needs the truth movement and his websites, and radio show, and fans, for self validation. .

self-validation. im gonna start using that one. it is soooooo on point.

=)

[dtugg]

"unsolved"????

we know who did it. Al Jazeera knows who did it. even YOU know who did it.

this isn't about the "truth" anymore. i don't know what exactly this is about..maybe attention...hating Bush..hating the USA..hating Israel..but it CERTAINLY is no longer about the truth.

I know this. According the RedIbis, it is not solved though. This doesn't seem to concern him much.