It is reassuring that someone on this thread is with me. There is a group in Canada that is looking at launching a legal challenge to allowing Bush, a self-confessed war criminal(if you believe that waterboarding is torture), into Canada. There is the Pinochet precedent, and the recent war crimes trials of Liberian officials in the US. Would Obama prevent an ally from arresting a self-confessed war criminal?

The whole world will have to believe in American exceptionalism for Bush and his chums to escape prosecution. The only other option is to then argue that everybody is exceptional, and that the rule of law no longer applies. In other words, the anarchists will have won. I will keep the thread informed on advancements in the process...

Substitute '911 plane attack' for Bioterrorism:

"It appears increasingly likely that the only significant bioterrorism attack in history may have originated from right within the (bio)defense program of our own country."

There is sufficient evidence to indicate that the three towers that fell on 911 fell with the help of explosives. Just check with Architects and Engineers for 911 truth. If the anthrax attacks were an inside job, why not 911?

The fact that to consider that 911 was an inside job is unpalatable, is not a reason to not consider it. The fact that Omooex says it might upset people because they have personal connections, is not a reason not to consider the possibility either.

The Church did not wish to consider Copernicus's theory that that the Earth was not the centre of the universe. Science said otherwise, and so it came to pass that objective evidence triumphed over what was previously 'common knowledge'.

There is no doubt but that to think your leaders could have perpetrated these attacks would be unpleasant. Why any more so than thinking that some were involved in terrorizing the population with anthrax? Is there any difference except in degree?

Obama says that he prefers to look forward rather than dwell on the past. Is that your take also? The window for 911 truth is not closed. The video evidence is present, and the science is there, in the research that shows products of explosives in the residue of the dust. Are crimes that involve killing your own civilians subject to the statute of limitations?

Chomsky has been tolerated by the elite because he gives the semblance of truth to the idea that we have a free and democratic press. Those in power can point to Chomsky, and state that the fact that he can say what he says proves the point. But the idea of a manipulated press, and propaganda is that there must be no criticism of the actual power structure itself.

Chomsky has always suggested that the US should exercise kinder, gentler, less obvious, imperialism. This is tolerable. He has not suggested that the US should not be an empire. That would be intolerable. Chomsky was shown a cogent case against LHO being the lone assassin of JFK(Towers of Deception, Zwicker). He would not address the case. He ignores the case for alternative theories of 911 in much the same way.

Some criticisms are tolerable in our society, and some are not. Chomsky is no idiot. He knows who butters his bread. He confines his discourse to things he knows will not get him fired. It is too bad that so many people are influenced by Chomsky, and do not use their own brains to analyze the evidence. People should not need an optometrist to tell them that the emperor is naked.

I stand corrected. Not a good explanation of Chomsky's views on the US and its Foreign policy. No correction though, on his views about JFK and 911. He dismisses these two world shaping events with disdain. For what reason?

I agree with inside job. When CNN has retired military analysts giving an 'unbiased view' of the war in Iraq, and it is found that the talking points are coming straight from the Pentagon, is it a stretch to think that this could be more than convenience, and that there might just be collusion? Just as the Pentagon uses private communications companies to suck up personal data, so do they use private media companies to spread propaganda.

Even the BBC and CBC must be infiltrated. One can not put forward an alternative theory about 911, the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, or other points of view that might upset the status quo. The fourth estate is in the hands of the elite, and it will continue to play the violin even as Rome burns around us.

The real Winston Smith(1984) was interested in looking outside the box. War is Peace. Amen.

The media has taken the same approach to 9/11. To consider an alternative theory to that of the 9/11 Commission is sacrilegious, and the MSM just acts as a conduit to give out that narrative. Who can blame them. If our leaders are lying about it, it really isn't their job to investigate the facts. Colbert put it most succinctly: their job is merely to write down what they are told, and deliver it to the people. Highly paid scribes. One step up from court jester...