Rating: 
Summary: Bold, we have to think of what they think, and would do.
Review: If you want the other version of the truth read this book, it is not a slap in the face, it is Hard Truth. One thing that many of us do not realize is the way a foriegn country will react to our actions. This Book reveals that very accurate thought reasoning in open detail. From reading this it may be a trite reason for all of us to accept that certain nations will respond to our policies, meaning we should be careful for ourselves from what others will do to us if we intrude. Sure, there is absolutely no excuse for 911, what needs to be looked at is how to prevent it from happening again, one way is to be aware of what these primitive minded terrorists and religious fanatics will do if we make a certain intrusive policy. You don't step on a snake with bare feet, it will bite you, and if you have protective shoes, it will find a way to get you. The snake does not know any better, and neither do many of these people who would like to ruin us. We need to wake up to that reality, not everyone is as intelligent as we are. That is what I got from this book. I do think that is an accurate real life summary of anything or anyone who slaps people around, the other will do something. It's horrible that thousands had to die for this primitive way of thinking, but that is real life we have to obviously be more wary of. This book brings this to light in a very Bold position, of what the primitives could and can do to us, not what we would normally think they or anyone would do. We have to accept that primitives are in great numbers, and they do not have our way of thinking or reasoning. This book says , be careful.
A book that offers a tremendous peace solution and even predicted the terrorist attack is SB 1 or God By Karl Mark Maddox, I believe this author has a potential remedy.
Rating:
Summary: Asking the right questions.
Review: Chomsky is disturbing to many people becasue he asks the difficult questions. When most of the U.S. media is focused on retaliation, bombs, attacking Afganistan,then looking for the next area in the world to bomb, Chomsky asks, Who is served by this response. The British govenment did not bomb Belfast in retaliation for the IRA attacks, or Boston, which was the source of most of the IRA funding. More to the point, however, is the history of Nicaragua where the U.S. was obviously the aggressor against a fellow republic and was condemmmed by the World Court for unlawful use of force, i.e., state terrorism. Then the U.S. and Israel vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution calling on the U.S. to desist. It is why the U.S. for the first time in history was not included among states which respect human rights in the last U.N. report. The brutal attack on the helpless population of Afganistan is not an action which shows the U.S. as a nation which respects international law or the integrity of others nations or its peoples. Nor has its purpose, the apprehension of Bin Laden, been accomplished.
Those who find Chomsky disturbing tend to be folks who do not read news or opinions outside the U.S. Dialogue on controversial international subjects tends to be circumscribed by the media in the U.S. and the limits clearly set out. Few students of history have read The Irish Soldiers of Mexico by Michael Hogan or the Open Veins of Latin America by Eduardo Galleano which are required reading for most international students. Both books show a history of U.S. forceful interventions which would certainly make reflective readers see more dimensions and more appropriate responses to terrorism than retaliation which results in the collateral damage of tens of thousands of innocent lives.
Rating:
Summary: fear factor
Review: those who do not like or learn from this book are people who are simply blinded by the flag. while brief, it's contents are grand. like it or not, this country is the new empire, and many regions of the world (not only the mid-east) resent it. with over 800 military instillations throughout the world, and not a single foreign instillation on u.s. soil, america has done a fine job of lifting itself up by stepping on others. this is an important book. you should read it.
Rating:
Summary: The Truth Always Comes Out When Chomsky's Around...
Review: This book provides what this country desperately needs: a dose of TRUTH. Chomsky brings to light the terrible truth - the events of 9/11 did not occur in a vacuum, but were a direct result of our foreign policies in the middle east and elsewhere. The US must realize, before it is too late, that this planet is NOT a playground for the wealthy. There are billions of third world citizens suffering due to our... foreign policies, which are almost without exception based on hoarding a majority of the world's resources for a minority of its citizens. Chomsky's book will likely be trashed by critics, as I have already witnessed on this site, but this 'trashing' appears to be primarily based on anger at being forced to a mirror more than any objection to Chomsky's FACT BASED writing. The United States is the ONLY country condemned in international court for terroristic acts, and the US refuses to pay reparations that were ordered to this day. We provide Israel, an industrialized country the size of NEW JERSEY with more foreign "aid" (if you can call weapons of mass destruction "aid") than all of India. We debate over whether we can "afford" to provide aid for AIDS medications to Africa, but apparently we easily "afford" to pay for the further oppression of the Palestinian people. If we insist on continuing our role as the world's bully, we will continue to be the target of terrorist attacks. Middle and upper-class Americans would do well to heed Chomsky's call for truth and justice. If not, they can hardly refer to themselves as "innocent victims" when the next attack occurs.
Rating:
Summary: A New American Model
Review: Noam Chomsky's book '9-11' is a relevant critique of the WTC and Pentagon disasters that will prove to be an eye opener. While I have read various bits of Chomsky's work (including a video of Chomsky's lectures), I favor his view. I have overall little interest in political science, and so much of what Chomsky brings up in this book is new to me. Yet, this did not stop me from catching the underlying theme of what Chomsky is saying: that America is, by definition, a terrorist state. This is what makes Chomsky so controversial. I believe Chomsky makes this statement purely out of objective fact of the US Code. What is purported through the media as the definition of terrorism is that which is attacked against us, or to those nations we "like." It is not a popular belief that this works the other way around. Aside from this, Chomsky addresses the the possibilities of why it happened, and what the possible consequences of "war" may be. Making many analogies to past events and relating world patterns that may prove useful in understanding our current situation. The book is short, but packs a good deal of information where little is repeated. Like most Americans, the events of September 11th had a impact that will be remembered, perhaps for the rest of your life. I highly reccomend this poignant book as it will illuminate some of the myths surrounding the events, as well as give you a keen perspective of what our country is doing without our knowledge.
Rating:
Summary: Katie Couric's head would spin!
Review: In other words, this is not the stuff of NBC News. I begin with a quote from the book:
"Nothing can justify the crimes such as those of September 11th, but we can think of the United States as an 'innocent victim' only if we adopt the convenient path of ignoring the record of it's actions and those of it's allies, which are, after all, hardly a secret(p 35)."
This short book is a transcript of email conversations with Chomsky. Many who are not familiar with Chomsky's work may be too quick to call him callous due to his style. He is not one to overzealously repeat obligatory statements so as to appease and pacify possible critics who would question his patriotism. Instead, Chomsky wishes to illustrate the "B-side" of the current crisis which is often bankrupt in most media.
Crucial premises among his talks include the idea that the U.S. did not take the legal route towards our response to 9-11 becuase it would lead to questions about the recent history of U.S terrorism (he gives a sampling) as defined by U.S. Codes and organizations such as the World Court. He discusses the comparability of 9-11 with other U.S. created disasters such as the Al-Shifa plant in Sudan (with it's resulting death count reaching into the tens of thousands). Interestingly, he discusses U.S. intelligence failures that may have led to the prevention of 9-11, such as Clinton's refusal (due, according to the CIA, to his "irrational hatred" of the country) to accept Sudan's critical information regarding many members of the Al-Qaida network.
Chomsky also questions the current Realpolitik phenomenon of American anti-Islamic Fundamentalism while we currently support Islamic Fundamentalist regimes, such as in Saudi Arabia, which are just as despotic, especially to U.S. "noble ends."
It seems that there is more of a pause among Americans in response to the bombings of 9-11. This is in sharp contrast to the American reaction to the Gulf War incident over a decade ago. Books such as "9-11" by Chomsky perhaps gives us a bit of insight as to why there is more of a "pause."
Rating: 
Summary: Chomsky's Usual Antidote for US Nationalism
Review: This book compiles interviews of Chomsky conducted mostly by foreign journalists (who know of Chomsky quite well, even if he is virtually unknown in his home country, the USA) via e-mail in the days immediately following 9/11. This book was meant to be a timely response and was sent to the publishers on October 15. Its rush to market shows at the edges. If you are not sure why the author's name is written in extremely large type above the title, you had better skip this book unless you are extremely open-minded and very willing to let go of your assumptions. Otherwise, you will be baffled, frustrated, and angered. Regular readers of Chomsky will find familiar themes, such as the United States as a "leading terrorist state". In searching for an appropriate response, he draws parallels with some of these favorite examples, including the official condemnation by the World Court of "unlawful use of force" by the Reagan Administration in Nicaragua and the IRA bombing of London. Although Chomsky doesn't excuse the 9/11 attacks - he does use the word "atrocity" after all - he sounds a bit cold-hearted at times because his main thesis throughout these interviews is that however atrocious the 9/11 attacks were, they pale in comparison to the atrocities of the United States' ongoing campaign of "soft war" (a euphemism for terrorism when us "good guys" are committing the acts) throughout the world and the United States' long history of "imperial violence". He cites such examples as the Clinton Administration's bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan and the growth of the war on South Vietnam into the devastation of Indochina. These are bitter pills to swallow, but Chomsky has never been one to sugar-coat or judge, instead preferring to cite his usual parade of concrete examples. Those who are not regular readers of Chomsky will find this book to be utterly "Un-American" in its accusations. Like most of Chomsky's writings, his foundation of assumptions is clearly a world apart from the typical US citizen's base (although it is not so alien to Europeans, whose journalists are conducting most of the interviews here). His casual remarks, such as the aforementioned labeling of the United States as a "leading terrorist state", are stunning unless one has read his numerous other papers that back these assertions with a thorough scholarly barrage of footnotes and bibliography. Without such notations, as is the case in this book, these remarks seem as judgemental and baseless as any other propaganda. This book is not a good introduction to the political writings of Chomsky. In addition to these parallels, Chomsky also directs attention directly at the region. He discusses the divergent perceptions of Americans and Middle-Easterners regarding US involvement in the region. He addresses Bin Laden's motives (at the time of publishing, Bin Laden's involvement was still in great doubt as far as the international community was considered) and shows how different they are compared to the popular "excuses" used in mainstream press, even as he uses mainstream press materials to back his thesis. His direct comments about Bin Laden and Middle-East politics will stand in stark contrast to mainstream news coverage that is still fresh in our minds, including the origins of Al Quaeda. Chomsky has always preferred to keep his emotions and ideology out of his writings, avoiding the name-calling that some of his detractors resort to. But in these interviews, one does see a glimmer of his ideology. He urges peace. Violence responded by violence begets more violence. He tries to maintain scholarly distance by citing history and quoting the Wall Street Journal. But he is human. If 9/11 has done anything positive, hopefully it has made us all "more" human. Chomsky illustrates, yet again, the oft-confused difference between nationalism and patriotism.
Rating: 
Summary: Disturbing explanations for 9-11...
Review: Noam Chomsky's 9-11 offers a disturbing explanation for 9-11 in this book based on radio interview transcripts and email interviews and lays blame squarely on US imperialistic foreign policy. Time magazine calls Chomsky "perhaps the most important intellectual alive", but I found that his "blame-America" viewpoints rankled my patriotism. Still, I forged ahead in understanding this "great intellectual" and read a number of his essays on the internet, read his papers on linguistics, watched his "Manufacturing Consent" movie...and over time I have gained a greater understanding and respect for his message. Indeed, Chomsky is important as he raises the debate on these issues. And debate, discussion, and dissenting viewpoints is indeed a critical part of a free democracy. Agree or disagree with him, he does trigger thought. I discovered Chomsky after 9-11 in my attempt to understand how something as horrible as 9-11 could happen. To an extent, Noam Chomsky offers an answer to that question. And in this regard, the book succeeds. But in other regards, the book fails. One, it is repetitive, and the chapters become somewhat repetitive as the later chapters are similar to the earlier chapters. Two, the book is a collection of interviews and essays...the gist of which, if not the actual interviews, can be read on the internet by using a search engine and keying in "Noam Chomsky". For a man of letters that Time Magazine calls "perhaps the most important intellectual alive" I guess I expected more. This book is repetitive, hastily prepared, the material not entirely unique or well-written, and in the wake of 9-11 it may be Chomsky himself who is using the heinous events of that infamous day to further his own intellectual agenda and make some profit by this book. My advice: definetly read Chomsky, but read his stuff on the web for free. In fact, I have read one interview from the book on the web for free since reading this book. ...
Rating:
Summary: 9-11
Review: Like a lot of Chomsky, it is invaluable. His perspective is great, and one that is much appreciated. Chomsky is a great voice for dissent who I find to be rational, thoughtful, and, to my surprise, these interviews were less accusatory than one might expect.
His lucid opinion is a good divergence from the same group think in the mainstream. IF you are at all interested in the subject of 9-11, this should be one of the books included in your list to read.
Rating: 
Summary: Sophistry in the service of the indefensible
Review: Politics is a messy and indeterminate business, but sometimes issues arise that require clear-cut moral judgements. One such is the evil of the mass murders perpetrated by the Islamo-fascists of al-Qaeda on 11 September 2001, and the right of the United States to defend herself to ensure that such an outrage does not happen again. This slight work by Noam Chomsky attacks that simple truth in a manner that is so tendentious, badly-argued, evasive, ill-informed, and lacking in a spirit of charity or self-criticism as to place it outside the bounds of decency. Chomsky's technique is the time-worn one of legitimising radical evil by comparing it to characteristics of our own imperfect but democratic and tolerant societies. Only someone previously committed to this type of world-view, in defiance of evidence and critical reasoning, would be impressed with such sophistry as Chomsky's ex cathedra assertions that 'we should not forget that the US itself is a leading terrorist state' (so kindly remind us when it was, exactly, that President Bush ordered the hijacking of commercial airliners in order to slam them into office blocks), or that bin Laden has been 'eloquent' [sic!] on behalf of the Palestinian cause, or that we should be 'dubious' about bin Laden's ability to to 'plan that incredibly sophisticated operation' (there has been little to laugh about in recent months, but reading that claim while recalling the video in which bin Laden admits his involvement and glories in it has a certain black humour at Chomsky's expense). What makes this booklet distinctive, however, is not so much the perversity of the world view underlying it - which is no more profound or original than the standard reflex of what Lionel Trilling termed 'the adversary culture' - as the accumulation of discredited claims and discreditable invective. One example among so many will suffice. Chomsky makes the preposterous claim that US policy in Afghanistan is to 'kill unknown numbers, maybe millions, of starving Afghans'. In reality, the defeat of the Taliban has ensured that food aid - which was previously expropriated by the Taliban - now reaches those who desperately need it. The bombing of Afghanistan has had precisely the opposite effect to that claimed by Chomsky: the toppling of a theocratic tyranny, the cornering of a terrorist organisation, and the feeding of the hungry, all to the unconstrained enthusiasm of the residents of that country. Who would deny the Afghans their joy in their hour of liberation? Why, Noam Chomsky would, of course. And this work of apologetics in service of the indefensible stands as a testament to the obtuseness that a consistent hostility to liberal values will descend to.
|
