Customer Reviews

9-11

5 star:		(63)
4 star:		(35)
3 star:		(17)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(17)

 

 

For the most part Chomsky is closer to the truth than his detractors.

Years ago I was a student at MIT and had a laboratory close to Chomsky's office in the old research MIT Research Laboratory of Electronics. At that time, and for many years later I thought Chomsky was a rabid liberal- socialist that was out somewhere in left field on many issues.

Of course I had formed that opinion without reading his books! But I knew that he had written dozens of books, was made an Institute Professor (which is a big deal at MIT) had written hundreds of papers and had at least 20 honorary doctorates from universities all around the world. When I sat down and read his books page by page I was converted. He simply presents the facts in a cool and detached manner. The facts speak quite eloquently for themselves and they are damming of US foreign policy.

On 9-11 and after like many others if I had been the President I would have ordered a military strike. It was and is a natural response as if your wife was raped or a child killed by a criminal. We wanted revenge for the 3,000 killed. Even Rudolph Giuliani told Bush he wanted to personally pull the trigger when Bin Laden was captured. It was a time of high emotion. Bush followed human instincts and his advisors, and indeed at lot of pressure from the American public and the congress to do something.

Chomsky of course has taken a more rational approach and has tried to formulate a quick analysis of what happened and where we have gone wrong. This is a short book but otherwise excellent. It is a question and answer format. I cannot agree with everything in the book but it gives a fair portrayal of many aspects of the problem. In many respects the US has become a rogue nation, pumped up with layer of propaganda and patriot rhetoric that has permitted the government for over 45 years and often with congressional and public support to invade Afghanistan, Cambodia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Haiti, Kosovo, Iraq, to send troops to Lebanon, to bomb Yemen, Libya, and the Sudan. No wonder the US has enemies. If we are upset about the 3,000 killed on 9-11 what do the Vietnamese think of the 2 million killed by the USA?

It is time for a complete re-think of the US foreign policy and the role of the UN and other institutions such that groups and countries will act within a set of internationally accepted laws. Then variations from those laws will be addressed by all nations acting together, not just the US following its own self interests for better or for worse. That is the value of this thin book on 9-11.

My humble opinion.

Jack in Toronto

I've long been a fan of the political analysis of one Noam Chomsky, as well as his interview based books such as "What Uncle Sam Really Wants", and "Secrets, Lies and Democracy" so I was quite looking forward to sitting down, and having a read of this, his latest interview based book. I was a little shocked however that it seemed to be little more than a cash-in on Chomsky's status as an intellectual than anything else.

Though the interviews were good -- many done by foreign journalists -- they really seemed to lack in the analysis department, and offered little critical commentary on the current "War On Terrorism". I would have much preferred to have waited until many more facts were known relating to the 9/11 situation, and it's aftermath in a much better thoughout book than to have read this...what's even worse is that the majority of the interviews were done prior to the October 7th airstrikes!

I would recommend this to those wishing to get a better idea of Chomsky's ideas, but I wouldn't recommend this to his fans who really would expect a lot more in the way of analysis.

After 9-11, Chomsky threw together some of his interviews and voila! Here's a book. Despite this herky-jerky format Chomsky remains one of the most brilliant and well informed Americans alive. It amazes me how many people reviewed this book without even rudimentary knowledge of who he is.

Aside from his more then 20 honorary doctorates from top universities around the world, his virtual remaking of the field of linguistics and his honorable position at MIT, Dr. Chomsky has something that few political writers, left or right, seem to have: Tons of information.

You will not see this kind of documentation many places, except possibly Gore Vidal. It is not only that he uses logical arguments and fact more then the pundits like O-Reilly and Coulter; He does so more then even those people I do not detest, like Moore and Franken.

All in all, more of a booklet then a book, but a very good booklet.

By the way, my favorite review is the one that said the book had no plot, as if it were supposed to be a story, thanks for the laugh kid!

This book collects interview and discussions with Chomsky shortly after the September 11th attacks. For those who want something a bit more enlightening, Chomsky puts forth bold assertions that many people wouldn't be willing to even consider in the wake of the attacks. One of his main assertions throughout is that if the US wants to really fight terrorism, we should stop participating in it. He cites specific, uncontroversial examples such as Nicaragua and the Contras, or Turkey, where massive US aid (by Bubba) helped the government do to the Kurds what we bombed Milosevic for when he tried it with Albanians.

I don't agree that Chomsky is insensitive to the victims of 9/11 in this book. I believe that his attitude is similar to many others': that such an event, while shocking, is not entirely surprising, especially to anyone who's been paying attention to the world in the last decade. Of course, he condemns the actions. He does not rant that American lives are paramount in the face of other atrocities, which may not make his critics happy, but he also regularly acknowledges that, in our society, we simply do not ask certain questions.

Therefore, it's disconcerting to some that Chomsky is able to discuss the matters of 9/11, terrorism, and the USA's global presence with what sounds like an almost arrogant detachment. Unlike the countless pundits on TV though, Chomsky rarely generalizes and cites sources for his facts. He may skew them how he likes, but he rarely makes up whoppers to prove a point, a favorite element of television debate.

Chomsky has been vocal about America's foreign policy for decades, and it's entirely reasonable to suggest that his tone is now relentlessly radical left with an evil eye for capitalism. However, I still believe reading Chomsky is a heck of a lot more valuable for the average reader and more enlightening than hours of CNN, Fox, or the wrapped-in-the-flag latest book from a TV 'pundit'.

It's funny, whenever a corporate media pundit mentions Chomsky, it's usually to rip him as 'anti-American', yet the points he actually makes are rarely refuted. Just calling him an 'intellectual' (he does not consider himself such) or an 'academic' is enough to discredit him in the eyes of those who see intellectuals and anyone critical of America as evil incarnate and in league with terrorists. Since he often cites specific facts though at times selectively, and he jettisons bombast in favor of serious consideration, he is the complete antithesis of loudmouth talking heads. Chomsky's arguments are certainly not airtight, but his presentation of facts, his acknowledgement of the de facto state of opinion, debate, and education in America, and his straightforward tone (he is very lucid in his speech and writing) make this a very compelling and important read.

"Blaming American foreign policy for the 9/11 attacks is the same as justifying them," write some reviewers. No, it isn't the same. An explanation is not an excuse. One insane agenda can be the trigger for another without either being justified on any grounds. To unthinkingly accept the righteousness of American foreign policy without considering its consequences is precisely the kind of infantile "either/or" mentality the American right relies on: "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." Actually, Mr. Bush, I'm with my conscience and common sense. Open your mind. Read this book. You might not change your views, but at least you'll have tested them against something more than White House press conferences and other forms of infotainment like CNN. Chomsky condemns the 9/11 attacks, as any rational, moral human being does. But he's brave enough to think seriously about what motivated them, even when the answers might be painful. How brave are you?

I really wonder if the Library Journal reviewer bothered to read the whole book, or just stopped when he found that Chomsky was departing from the post-9/11 unquestioning acceptance of the 'US vs. the evildoers' party line.
"Chomsky condemns the attacks specifically and then suggests that the deaths are entirely the responsibility of capitalist globalization" - That is a complete misrepresentation; Chomsky repeats several times that Bin Laden and his ilk don't care about globalization. What has created anti-American sentiment around the world, in Chomsky's view, is a US foreign policy dictated by the interests of energy companies, and which supports brutal, anti-human rights dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries because it guarantees access to cheap oil. This book was written before the recent US takeover of Iraq, but Chomsky's arguments are quite prescient...

This slim Chomsky book has a lot of important information in it --- unless you've read Chomsky before. If you know anything about US foreign policy, this is a recap. If you've never read Chomsky before, this is an okay place to start. (A better place to start is Chronicles of Dissent.)

What does it have to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks? Well, Chomsky gives you a lot of context. He shows you that these events didn't take place in a historical vacuum. But once you've read that, it's up to you to learn more, by reading dozens of other books.

I wasn't that impressed by this book but some of these negative reviews are mind boggling, for example, several reviewers refute Chomsky's claim that Bin Laden has CIA ties by stating that both Bin Laden and the CIA deny this claim.....ever consider that both parties are lying due to the embarrassment such a connection would cause? Of course Bin Laden was a CIA asset. We don't need chomsky to tell us that but, it gets annoying when some people insisting on refuting the claim and use lame official statments from less than credible parties as their source. Either way, there are far better books on 9/11 out there. Nevertheless, Chomsky does have an interesting POV and had I come across this book sooner, I might be inclined to give it a higher rating

Anoither thought-provoking book by Chomsky. I studied Chomsky's works while in university and have been a fan of his ever since. This book is an effective antidote to the pablum news coverage we receive in the american mainstream television news media. His book give perspective to such an unthinkable event, and should be required reading for anyone interested in national and global politics.

In this diminutive book, world renowned linguist Noam Chomsky responds to questions posed by journalists (many foreign) following the September 11th terrorist attacks on the United States. It should be emphasized that these "interviews" (mostly conducted by e-mail) have been edited and revised for publication in book form so that included are quotations from journalists and commentators to support Chomsky's arguments, quotations that would not necessarily have been at the ready during the interviews.

In reading the political Chomsky one is struck by his almost singular desire to focus on the short-comings of the United States and to balance terror against the US with terror by the US. Several times in the book Chomsky calls the US "a terrorist state." This is a view that many in the world find persuasive, especially those who have experienced the use of force and violence by the US, or even those who believe that they are being exploited by the US economically. And one can argue from a definition of "terrorism" as Chomsky does that the US has committed acts that are terrorist in nature.

But the same thing could be said of every significantly non-isolationist state throughout human history.

The problem then with Chomsky's critique is not so much that it is false, but that it is unfair. He does not take into consideration what another people or another nation state would do if they were in the position that the United States is in. We can imagine how Nazi Germany might deal with terrorist attacks were it the only superpower left in the world. We can speculate on how the Soviet Union would handle the First and Third Worlds had it won the Cold War. We can even imagine how France or China or Iraq or a hundred other countries might behave had they the opportunity (and the responsibility) of being the nine-hundred pound gorilla in the jungle of nation states. Would any of them do a better job than the US? Would they be more humane and kill fewer people? Would they take less for themselves and leave more for the underdeveloped, undereducated and vulnerable peoples of the world? Or would they take more, and more brutally repress challenges to their position and prerogatives?

No one knows the answer to these questions, but Chomsky seems ignorant of their relevance. In a sense he argues from the position of an ideal that does not exist in the real world. He argues not from an ivory tower so much as from a pearly gate. And I would like to remind him that the United States is the only country in the history of the world to rebuild the societies of the vanquished as we did after World War II, and as we are trying to do in Iraq.

I also think that Chomsky is mistaken in his belief that an armed response to terrorism only brings about more terrorism. On page 64 he quotes London Times journalist Simon Jenkins as saying that "what the perpetrators of the Manhattan slaughter must want above all" is a massive military assault that would kill many innocent civilians. Chomsky adds that such a slaughter would "mobilize others to [bin Laden's] horrendous cause." I think it is more likely that others would be mobilized to further terror against the United States if we did not act at all. The point is to respond as EFFECTIVELY as possible. This is what the US is trying to do. Whether we have the skill and the knowledge necessary to be effective against terrorism remains to be seen, but clearly we are steering a course between mass murder and doing nothing, which is really the only reasonable course.

Finally, I don't agree with Chomsky's idea that a proper first response to terrorism is to look into the causes of terrorism. The causes are murky and multitudinous, often triggered by social pathology. The first response is to make terrorism a high risk venture for both the perpetrators and their supporters and to take defensive measures to protect ourselves from them. Then, and only then, can we look into the social, political and economic causes of terrorism and see what we can do to change them. Be assured that as long as the US is rich and powerful there will be those who out of jealousy and hatred will want to harm us. No amount of perfect behavior on the part of the US will change that.

While I have a great respect and admiration for Chomsky as a linguist--his demonstration that the basic structures of language are mostly innate attributes of human beings and not something learned is one of the great scientific insights of the twentieth century--I don't think he is entirely effective as a political commentator. Nonetheless I think we need him as much as we need, say, ex-army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, whose views on terrorism (see his recent Beyond Terrorism) may be contrasted with Chomsky's.