| Title | : | 9-11 |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 1583224890 |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9781583224892 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Paperback |
| Number of Pages | : | 140 |
| Publication | : | First published November 1, 2001 |
9-11 Reviews
-
For a book that is admittedly kind of a rush job (it consists of a series of interviews done within a few weeks of the attacks, at a time when we were still uncertain whether Bin Laden was responsible), it has held up pretty well. If you are familiar with Chomsky’s critiques of American foreign policy, there will not be very much new here. This book is, rather, an attempt to popularize his basic views; and this means contextualizing the terrorist attack of 9/11 within the history of America’s own violent attacks on other nations.
Ironically, though the tone and subject of this book are quite serious, I often found myself thinking of a comical exchange between Chomsky and the popular philosopher, Sam Harris. Harris presents himself as a paragon of reason; and as part of that, he attempted to have a sort of sober “exchange” of views with Chomsky. This quickly devolved into acrimony as Chomsky was not, shall we say, in a friendly mood. However, I do think that the exchange does, somehow, effectively pinpoint the ethical position that Chomsky is taking, and that so many people fail to understand.
The disagreement between the two centers around the 1998 U.S. bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory, in Sudan. Chomsky uses this as an example of American state terrorism, and in this book asks the reader what would be the response if the situation was reversed, and Sudan had bombed a U.S. pharmaceutical plant. Harris’s defense—and I believe this is the standard argument in favor of U.S. intervention—is that our intentions were pure. We did not mean to kill anybody or deprive anybody of life-saving medication; we were just trying to stop terrorists from producing weapons.
Harris presents Chomsky with several thought experiments, making the (rather facile) point that intentions matter when making ethical judgments. If I try to save somebody and they die anyway, I am ethically superior to someone who killed somebody and succeeded. But Harris overlooks the (I think) quite obvious point that there is a grey area between altruistic and hostile intentions—that is, not caring one way or the other—which, ethically speaking, is often hardly better than being actively hostile.
This aptly describes the mentality behind the U.S. bombing of Al-Shifa. Consider: If we thought that weapons were being produced by terrorists in, say, Brussels, would we have sent cruise missiles to blow up the building? Obviously not, because the “collateral damage” would be deemed totally unacceptable. And yet, in the case of Sudan—a much poorer country, where people are far more dependent on a single factory for life-saving medicine—the decision was made quickly in favor of attack. Clearly, Sudanese lives were not deemed as important as Belgian ones would have been; and this shows an ethical stance of disregard.
A great deal of Chomsky’s critique on American foreign policy boils down to an attempt to get us to consider all lives as equally valuable, and all nations as equally sovereign. That is, to stop applying a double standard—one treatment for poor nations, another for rich ones. We are still very far from this stance. If we found out that the attack of 9/11 originated in, say, Ireland, what are the chances that we would have invaded the entire country? As Chomsky points out, the U.K. did not invade and bomb Boston, even though many of its citizens actively funded the IRA.
We can see this uncaring attitude of American foreign policy in the August 29 bombing that killed 10 in Kabul this year. None of those killed were terrorists, but six of them were children. Harris excuses “mistakes” like this by pointing to limitations in our intelligence and our weapons technology. With perfect knowledge and perfect weapons, we would never kill any civilians. This is like hunting for ducks in a crowded city park, and then blaming the shotgun when a person gets hit. Being ethical means acting within the limitations imposed by a situation, and considering the possible negative consequences of an action. No drone strike would have taken place in Brussels. But again, the possibility of killing innocent Afghanis is given very little weight.
It is clear that we are dealing with a serious sort of moral blindness, since it leads us to commit blunders as well as crimes. We even seem to think that everyone else will see past the accidental death and destruction, and give us credit for our irreproachably pure intentions. Thus, we are surprised when our long occupation of Afghanistan ends in a humiliating defeat, as we cannot understand why the population does not rally around our wonderful American values. But what speaks louder: the beautiful words on our lips, or the thousands of dead in our wake? -
I'm impressed that Chomsky, in the immediate wake of 9/11, recognized the many counter-currents in society that advocated a more nuanced approach to dealing with the Taliban in order to fight Al-Qaeda. More importantly, he immediately distinguished between the peaceful nature of the vast majority of Islam and the nature of the terrorists who attacked us in its name.
I once had the privilege of listening to Alan Story speak about non-violence. Alan, a South African minister, was conscripted into the South African army to help enforce the apartheid. Alan tried to become a conscientious objector and was arrested by his government for doing so. One thing he said about foreign policy that really hit me was, "When the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, all your problems start looking like nails." He was referring to the Department of Defense's handling of post-9/11 foreign policy issues in Iraq. Our efforts to try and seek out less devastating means for resolving that conflict were pitifully weak. To win the fight against radicalism and religious extremism we need more tools in our toolbox than a hammer. -
الكتاب عبارة عن مجموعة من المحاولات الصحفية التي أجراها نعوم تشومسكي بعد أحداث 11 سبتمبر مع مختلف صحف العالم، يهاجم تشومسكي الاستخدام المفرط للخطاب العسكري وسياسة الحرب ضد جميع من لا ينضمون إلي واشنطون في لجوئها للعنف، ويحذر بلاده من مغبة قتل آلاف المدنيين الأبرياء. يواجه تشومسكي نقدا شديد اللهجة للأصوات الأمريكية المتطرفة التي تطالب بالثأر والانتقام من الجميع وإبادة حكومات، ويبين أن ضحايا الهجوم وإن كثر عددهم فهم أقل بكثير من ضحايا سياسات الولايات المتحدة الخارجية واستخدامها العنف المفرط ضد الأبرياء مستعرضا تاريخ الولايات المتحدة الأسود بداية من تأسيس وكالة المخابرات المركزية الجيش الذي خاض حربا بالوكالة ضد القوات الروسية طبقا للأجندة الأمريكية مرورا بمساعدة حكومة أندونسيا التي نظمت مذابح لمئات الآلوف قارنتها وكالة المخبارات بجرائم هتلر وستالين، وخطة تدمير نيكاراجوا اقتصاديا وعسكريا وسياسيا، وتدمير أكبر مصنع أدوية في السودان والذي أدي لقتل آلاف من المدنيين الأبراء بأمراض كان يمكن علاجها بسهولة، ودور الولايات المتحدة في معاناة الشعب الفلسطيني عن طريق دعمها اللامشروط والنهائي للكيان الصهيوني، ودورها في تحطيم المجتمع المدني في العراق، وكذلك قتل المدنيين الأبرياء في الهجوم علي أفغانستان، ودعم الأنظمة الديكتاتورية في جميع دول العالم، وقطع المساعدات البرية من باكستان والتي قتلت آلاف اللاجئين داخليا من ضحايا الحرب. بل ويزيد نعوم ويكرر في كل مرة أن بلاده هي الدولة الإرهابية الأولي في العالم كونها الدولة الوحيدة التي تدينها محكمة العدل الدولية بالاستخدام غير المشروع للقوة لتحقيق أهداف سياسية في نيكاراجوا، وردت علي الحكم بمزيد من التصعيد العسكري ضد أهداف مدنية كالعيادات الطبية والجمعيات الزراعية. يؤكد نعوم أن سياسات الولايات المتحدة كانت تستهدف الأبرياء وتزيد من معاناتهم إذا فكراهية هذة الشعوب بل وترحيبها بالهجوم الإرهابي ليس أمرا مستغربا. ينتقد نعوم إخفاقات وكالة المخابرات بسبب برفض وزارة الخارجية التعاون مع السودان الذي عرض تسليم اتنين من المشتبه بصلتهم بتنظيم القاعدة وقوبل بالرفض الشديد ثم الضربة العسكرية ضد السودان فأفرجت عنهما بغضب، تصف وكالة الاستخبارات هذا الرفض كان أسوأ إخفاق مخابراتي فيما يخص الهجوم. -
9-11 is a collection of essays by and interviews with Noam Chomsky first published in November 2001 in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center.
In these essays, Chomsky places the September 11 attacks in context and traces the history of American intervention in the Middle East and throughout Latin America as well as in Indonesia, Afghanistan, India and Pakistan – at the same time warning against America's increasing reliance on military rhetoric and violence in its response to the attacks, and making a critical point that few other commentators were making, that any escalation of violence as a response to violence would inevitably lead to further, and bloodier, attacks on innocents in America and around the world.
The first edition of 9-11 was published in more than two dozen countries and appeared on several bestseller lists, including those of the Washington Post and the New York Times. An article about it in The New Yorker stated, “9-11 was practically the only counter-narrative out there at a time when questions tended to be drowned out by a chorus, led by the entire United States Congress, of 'God Bless America.' It was one of the few places where the other side of the case could be found.”
September 11, 2001 allegedly marks the date "after which nothing will ever be the same again". At least, this was the assumption made almost unanimously by everyone who spoke into a microphone or had a pen in their hand in the weeks following the al-Qaeda terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. "The terrible events of September 11th undoubtedly have a new quality", Noam Chomsky states in his analytical review of the background and consequences of this day, but "not in their extent or character (...), but in the aim of the attacks. Since 1812, the United States has not experienced an attack on its own territory; it has not even been threatened“. In this respect, then, something has already changed; but in Chomsky's view there can be no question of “nothing will ever be the same again”!
In these six essays, the linguistics professor, known for his sharp-sighted and sharp-tongued political analyses and polemics, shows us what he believes is wrong in the anti-terrorist rhetoric that follows the blackest of American September days. In doing so, he does not conjure anything out of his hat that not everyone could already know. He draws the facts from his very attentive reading of newspapers and laws and wants to show us at the same time how inattentive our (political) perception is and how great the readiness is to let ourselves be captured by mere rhetoric.
Thus, using the definition of terrorism laid down in the US Criminal Code, Chomsky shows that it depends on the respective political circumstances and power structures "whether the threat or use of force is described as terrorist". In any case, the criminal provision could also be used to castigate American policy as terrorist. There is no shortage of examples of US military actions that are questionable in this respect, and Chomsky cites some of them. In 1985, for example, the Reagan government deliberately exploded a bomb-laden truck in front of a mosque at the exact moment the faithful left the building. The support of "Israeli atrocities" and the destruction of a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan are also well documented and branded as such in the chapter entitled "State Crimes".
It is certainly not necessary to agree with the author's interpretations in every detail, but one will hardly be able to reject them completely. In any case, it is highly recommended to anyone who wants to see things from a perspective that is decidedly different from the one that is mostly used in media coverage (to which a section is also dedicated). -
كتاب رائع للفيلسوف والمثقف الحر نعوم تشومسكي وهو مجموعة من اللقاءات معه بشأن قضية ارهاب الحادي عشر من سبتمبر
يتحدث عن ردود الفعل الحكومي والشعبي والدولي
وعن ارهاب الولايات المتحدة الامريكية لدول العالم الفقيرة او التي تنشق عن عصا الطاعة
جرائم الولايات المتحدة بشعة بل تصل الى الابادات الجماعية والتطهير العرقي ما جرى في ( العراق، افغانستان، فيتنام، السودان، نيكاراجوا، كوبا....) والكثير مما لا يتسع المجال لذكره، اما حلفائها من الدول الغربية لا يقلون اجراماً عنها
هذا غير دعمها لحكومات استبدادية ساهمت في قتل شعبها مثل "اندونيسيا، تركيا..."
ولكن رياء المجتمع الدولي يعتبر الاعمال المناهضة للولايات المتحدة وحلفاءها "ارهاب" اما جرائمها "دفاع عن الامن القومي والحريات"
نعوم تشومسكي مفكر عظ��م جداً جداً أنحني احتراماً له -
A reality check for all those who are dangerously myopic and the epitome of the adage ”it takes one to know one.”
-
Ugh. Mad rantings with footnotes (which usually refer back to nothing more than prior Chomsky rantings). The only service Chomsky's political writing has ever provided is to make it easier to recognize uninformed or easily misled twits by allowing them to self-identify whenever they cite him in an argument. He puts the worst possible gloss on any action by the U.S. ever and the best possible spin on assorted tyrants and terrorists in a tedious and predictable way and willfully ignores any information that could upset his sad worldview. And all the while he accepts money from MIT, which is a part of the entire edifice that he finds so evil - which doesn't say much for the courage of the man's convictions.
-
"و فى اليوم الذى سبق احتفاله بيوم "القانون" , أعلن ريجان أن الولايات المتحدة لن تولى اهتماما بما يدور فى المحكمة الدولية , التى واصلت إدانتها لسياسة إدارته بسبب استخدامها غير المشروع للقوة, و انتهاكها للمعاهدات الدولية."
هى الولايات المتحدة المتجبرة دائما و التى و إن طبق عليها قانونها الخاص المعرف للإرهاب الدولى ستأتى فى أول قوا��م الدول الراعية و الممارسة له.
يتضمن الكتاب نص مقابلات صحفية لنعوم تشومسكى المعروف بصراحته تجاه النظام الأمريكى و ممارساته الوقحة فى عرف الجميع و التى يرتكبها تحت مسمى التدخل الإنسانى.
تكمن أهمية الكتاب فى رأيى فى كونه يتحدث بمثل تلك الجرأة و الصراحة فى تفسير نية الحكومات الأمريكية المتعاقبة , و هذا مع الوضع فى الاعتبار بأن الكتاب موجه إلى المواطن الغربى بالدرجة الأولى , أما نحن كعرب فأظن أن تلك الرؤية ليست بجديدة على الإطلاق و هى مطابقة للرأى العربى فى التاريخ الأمريكى الذى بدأ بإحتلال الولايات المتحدة ذاتها و طرد "السكان الأصليين" أو من يعرفون ب "الهنود الحمر".
الكتاب يشوبه بعض التكرار فى الأفكار و إن تم التعبير عنها بصيغ مختلفة.
بقى أمر واحد نشير إليه , و قصدته تماما على طول المراجعة بعدم وصم مواطنى الولايات المتحدة بدورهم الأكيد فى الأفعال الأمريكية القبيحة على مدار التاريخ , حيث تتزايد أعداد مواطنى أمريكا من الرافضين لسياسة الإنتهاك و التجاهل التى تمارسها بلادهم و التى تجر عليهم من ويلات يدفعون ثمنها من أرواحهم و من سخط الأمم عليهم. -
Read No Room For Further Burials. Be depressed and bored and confused at the same time. Then read this Chomsky. You will understand what the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq look like from the perspective of the powerless, impoverished people who make up the vast majority of those nations.
-
well said, Chomsky
-
The 9/11 attacks should have been treated and responded to as a crime, not an act of war, according to Noam Chomsky; and as far as he is concerned, if the American government wants to identify a perpetrator of terrorism, it should look in the mirror. Chomsky’s book 9-11 proceeds consistently and unapologetically in that vein; many American readers will find it contrarian, and some will no doubt hate it.
Chomsky’s 9-11 consists of thirteen interviews that Chomsky granted to journalists from a variety of countries – including France, Germany, Greece, Serbia, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States of America – between September 19 and October 5, 2001. As Chomsky is a well-known and respected public intellectual with a reputation for willingness to offer harsh criticisms of the policies of Western governments like that of the U.S.A., it is perhaps no surprise that journalists, particularly those from left-leaning publications, were seeking Chomsky out in the days after 9/11, for his views on the attacks. And this slim, 118-page volume offers those views, without compromise or equivocation.
What originally drew me to Chomsky’s 9-11 is that it is the first 9/11 book I ever saw. Sometime in the autumn or early winter of 2001, I visited my local Barnes & Noble bookstore in Ellicott City, Maryland – just down the street from an Army National Guard base where armed soldiers were standing guard from September 11th on – and saw this book on the shelves, with its cover showing the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center before the attacks. “My, but they got that out quickly,” I thought at the time.
What did not occur to me at the time, but did occur to me when I picked up Chomsky’s 9-11 this year, was to look at the publisher’s note at the back: “Open Media was founded in 1991 as a pamphlet publishing effort in opposition to the Gulf War, an effort which continues to this day…” That’s helpful information to have, when considering the often leading nature of the interviewers’ questions, and the sometimes strident quality of Chomsky’s answers.
It is not surprising to hear the author of Manufacturing Consent offer harsh criticisms of wealthy Western governments. Yet while I admire Chomsky’s intellect, and while I appreciated the manner in which he repeatedly referred to the attacks as “atrocities,” I immediately took issue with his assertion that “the U.S. is a leading terrorist state, as are its clients” (p. 16).
For Chomsky to speak that way, eight days after those devastating attacks, seemed to me terribly wrong. I am a liberal Democrat who would tend to agree, in ordinary times, with many of the critiques that Chomsky would offer regarding the actions of conservative American governments. Yet I found it inappropriate for Chomsky to go scoring rhetorical points in that manner at a time when the ruins of the World Trade Center were still smoking -- when not all the bodies of those slain at the Twin Towers and the Pentagon had even yet been recovered.
Much as I disagreed with so much of what Chomsky said in 9-11, there were elements of his argument that I could not gainsay. Asked about fundamentalism in the Arab world, Chomsky responds that “the U.S. and the West generally have no objection to religious fundamentalism as such. The U.S., in fact, is one of the most extreme religious fundamentalist cultures in the world; not the state, but the popular culture” (p. 21).
Much as I might have wanted to, I could not contradict Chomsky’s remarks here. After all, at this point in history, the people of the United States of America have elevated to the presidency of the republic a man who is manifestly wrong for the office: unsuited by temperament, and unqualified by experience, with not a day’s prior service in the government or the military.
Why did this happen? In part, because Donald Trump’s political base consisted largely of socially conservative evangelical Christians hoping that a President Trump would appoint conservative Supreme Court justices who would overturn prior court decisions regarding abortion and same-sex marriage. It seemed as though it did not matter to these voters how much harm Trump might do in other spheres, as long as their religious convictions with regard to sex-related social issues could be inscribed into law. The president, evidently, could preside over a ruined republic, as long as abortion and same-sex marriage would be illegal there.
Asked in a mid-September interview about the likely U.S. response to the 9/11 attacks, Chomsky sounded remarkably prescient when he suggested that “I suppose their own intelligence agencies…are warning them that a massive military response will answer bin Laden’s prayers. But there are hawkish elements who want to use the occasion to strike out at their enemies, with extreme violence, no matter how many innocent people suffer” (p. 34). Chomsky said these words on September 21, 2001. A year and a half later, in March of 2003, the George W. Bush Administration responded to the 9/11 attacks by invading – of all places – Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. As of June 2011, casualties of that war, by credible estimates, totaled about 465,000. And American soldiers are still there.
In other parts of the book, Chomsky does not seem quite as prescient. With regard to the prospect of the U.S. succeeding in killing bin Laden, Chomsky opined that “if the United States succeeds in killing him, he may become even more powerful as a martyr” (p. 61). That, fortunately, does not seem to have occurred. Since bin Laden was killed by Seal Team 6 at his hideout in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in May of 2011, he has receded into history. Other Islamist leaders have seized that grotesque little corner of the media spotlight. Bin Laden dead seems much less dangerous than bin Laden alive.
I have spent a great deal of time disagreeing, often strongly, with this book. Why, then, am I giving it a five-star review? Because Chomsky is a brilliant intellectual who makes one think. His logic is strict and rigid, with his conclusions following from his premises. If I think his premises are flawed, then it falls to me to try to construct better ones. And when the man on the other side of the rhetorical chess board is Noam Chomsky, I know that that task will be formidable indeed.
And now, almost two decades after the 9/11 attacks, the closing words of Chomsky’s 9-11 echo in my mind. Asked what social-justice activists should do in the wake of 9/11, Chomsky said that “It is important not to be intimidated by hysterical ranting and lies and to keep as closely as one can to the course of truth and honesty and concern for the human consequences of what one does, or fails to do” (p. 118). He was talking about responses to 9/11, but he could just as well have been talking about the Trump administration. Hysterical ranting? Lies? Attempts at intimidation? It all sounds only too familiar to a citizen of this country in the year 2020.
Chomsky’s 9-11 was no doubt controversial in its time. It might be controversial to many readers nowadays. But Chomsky, as is his wont, will certainly get you thinking. -
This book does an excellent and concise job of exploding the myth that the US was an innocent victim in 9/11, and that its response (the "War on Terror") was righteous and necessary, and it does so without resorting to so-called "conspiracy theories." Now, personally, I think that those "conspiracy theories" are a crucial part of the damning case against the US, but many people aren't willing to go there just now, and this book is the book for them.
Chomsky reveals that, far from being "anti-terrorist," the US has in fact long been the leading practitioner of state terrorism, and is the only state to have been convicted by the World Court for it. The scary thing is that none of the things he cites (Nicaragua, Al Shifa, Beirut, etc.) are deep dark dubious secrets, but are all a matter of common knowledge, public record...the kind of thing you can find on Wikipedia. How do we not know of them? People think I'm anti-American, and I never even knew this stuff.
Chomsky also points out that we had many alternatives besides invading Afghanistan (and then Iraq, which he wasn't even thinking of at the time!), and I find myself thinking, "Well duh! Why did I never think of that? We must've been brainwashed or something!"
The main drawback to this book is that it consists of a series of interviews, which ask similar questions and which thus cover much the same ground over and over. But for many, this is a message that needs to be pounded in over and over. -
This really is a gem of a book. A series of interviews post 9-11. Chomsky is eeriely prophetic with his analysis regarding the events pertaining to 9-11 and its implications. Easily the best book discussing the matter and it's even more mind blowing that these interviews were said more than a decade ago.
-
Como me lanzo de cabeza hacia un libro que me llame la atención sin mirar nada más, me la he pegado bien fuerte.
Pensaba que sería algo relacionado con los hechos ocurridos, con la investigación del atentado, la historia de los que perdieron la vida en él o de los que siguieron la suya sin su ser querido. Pero no, no hay nada de eso.
Es una compilación de siete entrevistas realizadas días después de la masacre. En cada pregunta hay dolor y en cada respuesta hay verdad, que puede molestar o puede gustar, pero es lo que hay.
Si te dedicar a alimentar odio, posiblemente ese odio termine por llegarte a ti doblemente. Y la violencia no puede servir para acabar con otra violencia, eso está demostrado.
No es fácil de leer, pero si se lee a buena velocidad. Desde luego nos es un formato que le guste a todo el mundo, y las críticas que este señor hacer tampoco.
Como lectura me ha parecido bastante aburrida, pero si os gustan los ensayos periodísticos o son estudiantes de sociología o ciencias políticas, deberíais leerlo, aporta bastantes datos que se supieron con el tiempo sin olvida que la primera edición se publicó mes y medio después, cuando había más caos y dolor que luz. -
قريته بترجمة الشروق الدولية وهو مختلفش عن رؤية تشومسكي في كل كتبه رؤية اجتماعية تاريخية متحررة من قيود تأويلات وأوهام الليبرالية الثقافية والسياسية
-
Noam Chomsky often sounds like a voice in the wilderness, especially in the weeks precisely following 9-11, so we should be grateful for an early voice of comparative reason.
Nonetheless, Dr. Chomsky comes across as alternatively over and under-prepared, not that anyone really could have been prepared for 9-11 and its aftermath.
My problem is, whether he is answering interviewer questions immediately following the event, or writing a summary article 8 months later, his answers are delivered like an avuncular politician from the 1960s, one who doesn´t want to address the issue at hand or have the logic of his position entirely understood.
His words on the printed page are noticeably clearer and less soporific than a live speech I once attended, but he front-loads all of his answers with older, tangentially related examples and trails off into one sentence generalities at the end. For a world-renowned professor of linguistics, he apparently doesn´t subscribe to traditional essay format. If his concluding sentences are meant to provide a synopsis of everything said before, he truly does put a lot of faith in just a few words. Worst of all, his sentences gradually lose their antecedents, so you´re always reading backwards to see which example(s) a late generality applies to. I used to think he didn´t condone analysis, but now think it´s just a brief hand-wave after every act of librarianship.
Where he seems right: He says several times that excessive military response, beyond punishing the perpetrators, only plays into the hands of someone like bin-laden.
Where it´s just strange:
-He doesn´t seem especially demanding regarding evidence against bin laden.
-He says killing bin laden will only make it worse.
-He hints that the "Arab world" has pent-up anger regarding some apparent state-sponsored suffering he doesn´t (dare?) describe.
The best part of the interviews is a long section documenting the history of state terrorism in the west. That stated, Mr. Chomsky has a habit of ascribing every act of history to one nebulous actor, i.e. "the U.S.", instead of, say, Reagan, who he sometimes points out by name. At the same time, he says that Afghanistan is not Afghanis. When he generalizes "the Arab world", I also begin to wonder how much time he personally has spent in the places he writes about.
Generally it´s not clear who he targets by blaming country the concept for the last 40 years of Western politics. Or is he, as Hesse said of the Germans, "once again beginning to think ´historically´(that is inhumanly)?" -
Written shortly after the attacks themselves, it is interesting to review Chomsky's thoughts with the advantage of more than a decade's hindsight. He has been proven to be both far sighted and perceptive. Pretty much every aspect of his predictions have come to fruition. The work addresses what the optimal response to these horrendous attacks should be, and what it was likely to be. It is sad indeed that he was proven to be correct.
It could be argued that to fail to provide a robust response to these attacks was to show weakness. However the argument for a strong response to the crimes of terror, within the purview of international law was well made and was indeed the only way to avoid an escalating cycle of violence. It's easy to demand an immediate military response and this is a natural urge, but Chomsky argues for a different path, learning the lessons of history.
This might be considered, with some disdain, a liberal approach but NC is equally critical of left leaning intellectuals as he is of the hawkish stance.
I am not a great fan of this style of book, capturing the results if numerous interviews with international press and journalists. This makes the narrative somewhat repetitive and also necessitates notes to let the reader know the context of a particular remark. For example explaining that the questioner was from France when making a point about that country's foreign policy agenda.
Interesting and relatively quick read. -
In the aftermath of the of Paris terror attack last November 13, 2015, the international (i.e. Western) media covered it extensively and the majority in social media sympathized with the French. Facebook had even added the option to overlay profile pictures with the French flag and activated its "safety check" feature.
However, an opinionated minority expressed a grievance toward peoples' (both in the media and social media) limited attention. Many cited the suicide bombing that rocked Beirut just a day ago and how the silence in social media was deafening. No profile picture overlays, no safety checks. (In my case, since I am based in the Philippines, I often cited the brutal killings and displacement of our indigenous, the Lumads, and how they largely go unnoticed.)
But what I found baffling was how some supposed intellectuals mocked or even maybe even dismissed this minority concerns as if they were not valid. Sometimes even up to now, the mockery continues which I think has the aim of pointing out the minority's "inconsistency."
I would therefore recommend this book as an introduction as to why the minority reaction to the 2015 Paris terror attack should be the norm if we want to stop or maybe minimize this cycle of violence. -
A collection of interviews with Chomsky after the attacks on 9/11. The over-ridding message is that Chomsky would like to see the U.S. take the approach of compiling evidence of criminality and presenting such findings to the World Court. Unfortunately, the US is the only nation (with the exception of Israel) to vote against such machinations and has decided to take the vigilante approach, thus producing martyrs and a new generation of “terrorists.” Another illuminating point: Chomsky observes that bin Laden could care less about world trade policies, in fact, he would be hard pressed to find Canada on a map. He only wants the West out of the Middle East and is willing to go to extreme and horrific lengths to achieve those goals. For further reading: “Western State Terrorism” by Alex George.
-
If you've read anything else by Chomsky, you know exactly what you're getting -- the argument of a brilliant man who knows history better than god but has incendiary views. Chomsky does a good job explaining the context surrounding the hatred. Those who disagree with him will say he is an apologist for terror.
This book goes through US foreign policy in the last several decades highlighting many examples to support the argument that "when they do it to us we call it terrorism; when we do it to them we call it foreign policy".
The examples he gives are of situations that are likely done justice (or mentioned) in your history class. It'll make you ashamed of America for its past misdeeds and of yourself for your ignorance about history. -
Compilation of heavily edited transcripts from interviews with Chomsky in the weeks following 9/11. By it's very nature, much of it is redundant, making for an occasionally tedious read. Chomsky takes a primarily historical perspective in his discussion of global affairs and U.S. foreign policy, which isn't always useful, but is frequently interesting. The book serves as a good counterpoint to the nationalistic propaganda the U.S. media was churning out at the time these interviews took place. The edition of the book I read had a 10-page 2004 interview tacked on at the end which more succinctly stated many of the better points in the rest of the book and addressed the Iraq war as well. My advice: get that copy, read those last ten or so pages and skim the rest.
-
Harrowing and eye opening. You cannot looks at the military actions of the United States in the Middle East in the same way after reading this short book. I highly commend it to everyone -- if for no other reasons than that the mainstream media and cable networks give you no inkling of what the government is really up to around the world. Which is why Chomsky and others like him are so invaluable.
-
أعتقد أنّه لا يجب الحديث أو التعقيب عمّا يكتبه نعوم تشومسكي في اختصاصه، يكفي أن تقرأ، و تحاول متابعة القراءة رغم الكم الهائل من الحقائق و المعلومات التي يسردها تشومسكي في كل مرة.
تشريح الإرهاب .. على الطريقة التشومسكية.. -
My first ever Chomsky read. It felt very brave of him addressing USA as a terrorist-state for it's subsequent deeds, specially at a time right after 9-11. The way he sees the cause and effects of the US policies are surely thoughtful and in some case, tremendously just!
-
Se trata de un análisis de uno de los más dramáticos hechos contemporáneos. La edición Kindle es muy defectuosa. Algunas de las cosas que dice el libro: Es la primera vez desde la guerra de 1812 que el territorio nacional se ha visto atacado. Estados Unidos no gobierna el proyecto corporativo de globalización. El término apropiado sería crimen. Guerra contra el terrorismo es simple propaganda. Estados Unidos es una de las culturas fundamentalistas mas extremas del mundo. Las reglas "neoliberales" con iguales a las de épocas anteriores. El 11 de septiembre no tiene, en mi opinión, prácticamente nada que ver con la globalización económica. Estados Unidos es el único país condenado por terrorismo en el Tribunal Internacional. Estados Unidos continua con el terrorismo internacional. Estados Unidos está oficialmente comprometido con lo que se llama -guerras de baja intensidad. Osama Bin Ladem comparte el odio contra Estados Unidos. En un mundo con armas de destrucción masiva, lo que implica es el inminente final del experimento humano. El Estado islamico más poblado es Indonesia, favorito de Estados Unidos desde que Suharto tomó el poder en 1965. Y la historia de Europa es todavía peor. En 1999, Turquía bajo de su posición de principal beneficiario de armas de Estados Unidos (sin contar a Israel y a Egipto), fue reemplazada por Colombia, la peor violadora de derechos. Los programas de contrainsurgencia de Estados Unidos están explícitamente esbozados según el modelo nazi. Pakistán tiene armas nucleares.
-
A Noam Chomsky interview
12 December 2010
This small book is a transcript of a radio interview with Chomsky shortly after the September 11 attacks. I remember being in Sydney late 2001 when a friend of mine saw this book and said 'I'm not surprised Chomsky has already written a book about September 11th'. At the time I had never heard of Chomsky, however that ignorance has since changed.
I'm not surprised that Chomsky released a book quickly as well, because the event was such a psychological shock to the United States that its citizens were wanting answers. Further, Chomsky, a long time critic of American foreign policy, needed to quickly put his views on the atrocity to the forefront as well. Unfortunately, Chomsky is not Fox News or CNN which means that his views tend to stand in the background while being ridiculed and attacked for their irrelevance.
There is not much that can be said of this book that has not been said of any of this other books. Once again it tends to follow the same theme of American hegemony and the undermining of the democratic order. In this book he particularly focuses on the events of September 11th, and in particular, why it is not strictly an unexpected event. He also goes on to defend his position, demonstrating that the events in New York on that day have done nothing to change it. -
الكتاب يتضمن مجموعة من مقابلات صحفية مع المفكر الأميركي نعوم تشومسكي.
أهم ما جاء بالكتاب بالنسبة لي هو حديثه عن السياسات الأمريكية التي تتعاطى مع الارهاب بشكل مختلف عن سسائر الدول بحيث تعرف الارهاب بطريقتها الخاصة. وأورد هنا أهم النقاط السوداء في تاريخ السياسات الأمريكية:
_أميركا اتهمت بالارهاب عام 1986 ولكنها استخدمت حق النقض أي الفيتو
_انجلترا لم تتعرض لهجوم من الهند, ولا بلجيكا تعرضت لهجوم من الكونجو, ولا ايطاليا من أثيوبيا , ولا فرنسا من الجزائر. فلذلك أوروبا و أميركا أصابتهم الصدمة بسبب أحداث 11.9
_أميركا تمارس "الارهاب المقنع ". بعض الأمثلة:
1)أميركا وضعت عام 1985 سيارة مفخخة أمام مسجد في بيروت أودى بحياة 80 مدني و اصابة 250 اخرين,وذلك لقتل شيخ مسلم
2)دعم أميركا لاسرائيل في اجتياح لبنان الذي قتل فيه حوالي 20000 مدني
3)دعم تركيا في حربها ضد الأكراد حيث دمرت 3500 قرية و تم تهجير 3 ملايين نسمة
4)دعم اندونيسيا في تيمور الشرقية
5)ادانة الجيش الألباني لتحرير كوسوفو واعتبار أفراده ارهابيين عام 1998
6)الاعتداء على نيكاراجوا و اثارة الفتن و الحروب في أميركا الجنوبية -
Mala traducción al español y además el formato electrónico en el Kindle es deficiente lo que no lo hace fácil de leer. Chomsky, buen pensador y crítico de lo que sucede considera que los hechos del 11 de septiembre tuvieron su origen en todas las actitudes terroristas y desnaturalizadas de la política norteamericana en muchos de los conflictos en los que participó en el siglo XX, especialmente los de Afganistan y Rusia.
Un pensamiento que hace meditar al lector, es aquel en el que menciona que en USA es terrorismo todo lo que hacen los demás contra ellos, pero no aceptan calificar como acciones terroristas o como violencia si sucede lo contrario (patrocinados por su gobierno como en el caso de Nicaragua y los "contras" o el bombardeo a una fabrica farmacéutica en Sudan y numerosos ejemplos más).
Preferible leer un libro suyo que una recopilación de entrevistas repetitivas como es este caso. -
The term Conspiracy theory is an effort to blur the factual insights of every institutional Audit. Thats why we tend to take lightly to these kind of Institutional Audit because we labeled them as conspiracy theory just like what the media wants us to do.
Muhammad SAW, Yeshua/ISA/Jesus was also considered as a conspiracy theorist at their struggle to convey God's message. But it doesn't mean the message that they are preaching is a conspiracy. That's just how people at that time trying defend their belief, culture, value from institutional audit that Muhammad SAW, Yeshua/ISA/Jesus AS purposed.
