9-11

Rating:
Summary: Making sense of 9-11.
Review: As we reach the final days of 2001, like many people in the world, I'm still trying to make sense of the September 11th terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. For those unfamiliar with him, Noam Chomsky is a respected philosopher, political commentator, and linguistics professor at MIT. This book is drawn from several interviews he gave in the aftermath of September 11th.

Chomsky does not share the mainstream views on the U. S. "war on terrorism." While he feels outraged by the World Trade Center attacks, Chomsky disagrees with and our government's decision to bomb the innocent, starving civilians of Afghanistan. Violence only results in more violence. Rather, using the Oklahoma City bombing as an analogy, he believes that the perpetrators of the 9-11 attacks should be identified, arrested, and brought to court for their crimes. Like me, many readers will be startled by Chomsky's views. For instance, he repeatedly maintains that the U. S. is a leading terrorist country by pointing out that the U. S. is the only country to ever be found guilty of international terrorism by the World Court. Terrorism is wrong, he argues, regardless of who perpetrates it, and we should use 9-11 as an opportunity for insight. This book is recommended for anyone struggling to come to terms with September 11th.

G. Merritt

Rating:
Summary: A problematic but compelling approach to the events of 9-11
Review: I find Noam Chomsky's "9-11" to be a very difficult book to review, but still feel compelled to offer my assessment. First, the basic facts: this book consists of a series of interviews with Chomsky; these interviews were conducted in the first month after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In his comments, Chomsky offers a radically contrary view to the flag waving, "I-support-the-President" attitude that has seemed so pervasive throughout the U.S. Chomsky seems to be assuming the role of the angry prophet who points an accusing finger at a nation (the U.S.) and its leaders. Chomsky's interviewers in "9-11" include many different individuals and media outlets: Italy's "Il Manifesto," the "Hartford Courant," Greece's Alpha TV Station, and more.

Chomsky does not rationalize the 9-11 attacks, and in fact condemns them as "horrifying atrocities." But he also claims that the United States' "war against terrorism" is essentially a hypocritical sham. Many times he makes the claim that "the U.S. itself is a leading terrorist state." To support this contention he cites such history as the U.S. actions in Nicaragua under the Reagan administration. He also discusses at length the Clinton administration's bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan. He criticizes the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan up to the time the book went to press, and discusses other connected issues.

The book includes many citations from mainstream media ("The New York Times," the "London Observer," the "Christian Science Monitor," etc.), so one can't accuse Chomsky of just making his claims up. I would also note that David Rose, who is one of the many journalists cited by Chomsky, has a relevant piece in the Jan. 2002 issue of "Vanity Fair"; those interested in this book might want to also check out that article.

Much of what Chomsky says is compelling. But some of his claims and analogies strike me as flawed. For example, he claims that, in the wake of 9-11, the U.S. should have followed the response model demonstrated after the bombing of the Oklahoma City building. But Timothy McVeigh was not being sheltered by a regime at odds with the U.S., so the comparison hardly seems logical. And his accusation that the U.S. is engaging in an "ongoing process of silent genocide" in Afghanistan also strikes me as hard to defend.

The book is, in my opinion, greatly hurt by Chomsky's own tone. He seems to show little compassion for the victims of 9-11; actually, his words have a cold, arrogant flavor to them. Whether this is the fault of Chomsky or his editor, I do not know, but I imagine this tone will only alienate potential readers.

I applaud Chomsky for pointing out some relevant data from recent history, and for his willingness to raise a contrary voice in a time of crisis. But there is much in "9-11" that I must question. Despite the book's flaws, however, I recommend it to critical readers who want to better educate themselves on the issues surrounding 9-11.

Rating:
Summary: invaluable
Review: I found this work to be a compelling read. It gives comprehensive information about all countries and parties involved. It makes a clear argument that the events of September 11 were a crime against humanity and should be judged accordingly in a court of law. That in fact operation 'enduring freedom' may be increasing the risk of terrorism on United States soil rather than reducing it.
He also gives detailed information on American foreign policy that is largely lacking from the media. It is my belief that if the American public where more alert to the atrocities committed by there own government, they would be shocked and dismayed. It is crucial that we make ourselves very aware of all the facts. That way we can each make an informed opinion about the current course of action. In this regard I found this book invaluable.

Rating:
Summary: The Horror, The Horror
Review: Chomsky's a truth-seeker in a world full of lies. His arguments cut through all the rubbish and nonsense we're all exposed to here in the US everyday and present an alternative, informed perspective.

By using comparative analysis and sticking with only the "known" facts, Chomsky forces the reader, (if open-minded), to reconsider what the "war on terrorism" really means.

The strength of Chomsky's argument lies in the obvious double-standard he continually presents us with. For example, in 1986 the US was found guilty of international terrorism and ordered to pay reparations to Nicaragua. The US immediately responded by denying the authority of the World Court. When the UN tried to pass a resolution requiring all UN-member states refrain from international terrorist activities, only Israel and the US vetoed the vote.

The irony here is that the US is fighting a "war on terrorism" but is, in fact, the only Western power ever to be cited for conducting terrorism abroad. How come that nugget of information was never part of the analysis the networks brought us? Surely, it is an important point? Surely, it adds perspective?

Chomsky's message is that the US has conducted it's own terrorist activities and backed terrorism whenever it has suited its purposes. Well documented examples include Nicaragua, Beirut, the Sudan, Chile, Guatamala and Iran.

Where the talking heads on TV enthusiastically talked about terrorism as "asymmetric warfare", Chomsky points out that nation states have quite happily used terrorism (as defined by the US military handbook) for their own ends, usually changing the term to "counter-terrorism," "counter-insurgency," or "humanitarian efforts."

The "war on terrorism" is a war inside a mirrored fun house. Our allies are Turkey and Russia who are both terrorizing minorities in their own territories, ethnically cleansing at home while they fight terrorists abroad. Saudi Arabia is taking out feel-good ads in Time magazine while key members of the Saudi Royal family continue to help fund the very Islamic Fundamentalists who cheered 9-11. Meanwhile, the Northern Alliance, our allies on the ground in Afghanistan, are renowned for their past as even bigger butchers than the Taliban and will likely be a source of more blowback later on this decade.

If you care anything about the situation we all find ourselves in since 9-11, read this book. You don't have to agree with Chomsky. Just listen to the facts.

Rating:
Summary: Understanding is not Apology
Review: These one-star reviewers have absolutely missed the point.

The point is *not* that it was OK to attack America. The point it that it is EQUALLY evil for others to attack America as it is for America to attack others.

Chomsky uses analogy, as he often does, to explain why WE are the ones guilty of "Moral Reletivism." For example, if attacking the WTC was wrong, which it quite obviously was, then Clinton's attack on a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory (which has cost THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of lives) was ALSO wrong. He doesn't MEAN "America should be attacked" at ALL. He expects that his readers are intelligent enough to see his point. The point is that we need to see how our government's actions- over the decades- have led us to this. Whether or not we choose to forget our support of Saddam Hussein even after he gassed his own people, whether or not we choose to ignore the plight of Palestinians, the rest of the world does not. And neither does Chomsky.

The point is that the awful, awful pain felt by us all, and especially victims' families, has been felt by others all over the world, because of our government's actions. The point is that there are REASONS the US is hated. That doesn't in any way JUSTIFY violence, it tries to explain it.

That being said, this is not a good *introduction* to Chomsky's work. Most people in this country have no idea how far off their concept of America's foreign policy is. Most people have no idea why we are so hated in the Middle East. Chomsky has ALWAYS criticized the US government for propping up brutal military dictatorships so US corporations have access to imperial resources. Most people have bought into the self-serving nonsense about "They hate us because we are good." Most people do not know that the US government deters democracy all over the world, so that our corporations can have access to natural resources without having to share profits with the native people. The mainstream media simply never tells the whole tale, and Chomsky has always tried to do so. Here, he does only an OK job.

Ever stop to think, "Why are people in the Middle East so poor if that region is so rich with oil?" Ever wonder why the US's gas is so much cheaper than it is in Europe (no, it's not just taxes). I can understand why someone who gets all of his news from CNN or worse yet FoxNews, may see Chomsky as coming from Neptune, or worse, justifying terrorism.

To better understand the media/corporate/government information system, read Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent. To better understand US foreign policy, read his Rogue States or William Blum's book of the same title.

There is a reason the NY Times calls Chomsky "arguably the most important intellectual alive." Read on and find out why.

Rating:
Summary: keep mind open
Review: I have read this book and found it to be very helpful in understanding why people would cheer an evil man such as Bin Laden.
I understand why people would like to dismiss Chomsky as an arrogant liar however he did make very valid points that can not be ignored. It does appear that Bin Laden has used the US to try and strengthen his support in the Middle East by Making the US look like the enemy. If you look at some of the actions the US has done in the past, it looks to be a bit like the old saying 'do as I say not as I do'. But then again it might just appear that way.
However a couple of things I wish were different were, when Chomsky talks as always he tends to speak in circles which might make it hard to follow and little boring, and It would also have been nice to see more references.

Rating:
Summary: 9-11
Review: This is an excellent book. In this time of one-sided views of the world and America's role in it, it is refreshing to read someone who really tells "it like it is." Mr. Chomsky is a voice of sanity in an insane world. America has to learn that terrorist acts are in the eye of the beholder. America has been responsible for the death of meany people in this world--but we don't call it terrorism, we call it "foreign policy." Hopefully, the American people will someday see that America needs to stand for values of freedom and liberty for ALL people of the world, not just Americans.

Rating:
Summary: Go for a book where you actually learn something
Review: The book is brief (96 pages), but it's substantive content is even less than that. Anyone who's read Chomsky's articles knows what is going to be said here. The United States government and the terrorists are morally equilvalent, regular Americans are too ignorant to understand the Middle East, somehow Bush is to blame, it's Israel, stupid, and so on. Nothing particularly new here. There's the typical left-leaning commentary about how we should cut our support for Israel (an "apartheid state") and drop sanctions against Iraq. There's also the moral equivalance argument where Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush are just as bad as bin Laden/Hussein. I'm not particularly offended by of Chomsky's claims. He's just wrong.

Unless you are a Chomsky lover, like the majority of the students in my graduate history courses, stay away from this book. Chomsky's reputation as America's foremost dissident and intellectual has gone to his head. Instead, how about buying one of the substantive books about the Middle East crisis? Check out Bernard Lewis, Chaim Herzog, Amin Maalouf, Simon Reeve's "New Jackals", or anything by Ahmed Rashid. Leave Chomsky on the shelf so there are plenty of copies for the tenured radicals to buy.

Rating:
Summary: Predictable but Potent, Irritating But Illuminating
Review:

Chomsky is somewhat predictable and irritating in his repetitive condemnation of all past and present U.S. interventions around the world, and he harps heavily on the U.S. being the only country in the world actually condemned for terrorism (against Nicaragua) by the World Court but one has to give him credit--his is one of the few credible voices seeking to enlighten the American people with respect to two major global realities: first, that America is violating others with impunity and regularity; and second, that we have no idea just how hated we are for these actions.

There were a couple of tid-bits in this book that made me especially glad to have obtained it for reading and retention. His evaluation of the Sudan situation, and his detailed review of the impact on Sudanese reliant on the low-cost medicines from the factory bombed into oblivion on the now-disputed suggestion of the CIA, provides a perspective that needs more respect.

His lengthy discussion of the contradictory record of the United States on human rights--in favor when it does not interfere with business, actively obstructionist when it takes place in Saudi Arabia or Indonesia where financial equities (generally mining and energy company equities) are great, is disturbingly sensible.

I will always read Chomsky, for he provides a leavening of forthright candor and intellectual honesty that is too often absent from mainstream discussions. Indeed, as I was reading the bit on Sudan, it occured to me that we are long over-due for the next revolution in learned discourse--the digitization of all such books so that a reader can, to take Sudan as an example, see on their screen a "map" of Sudanese issues, and then select from across a range of competing viewpoints on any issue. One has to seek out Chomsky now--in the future it may be salutory to find him automatically served up as a side dish whenever the pundits wax too pontifical.

Rating:
Summary: Devastating stuff;
Review: Chomsky points out that the attack of September 11 was unique in that for the first time since 1812 U.S. territory was attacked. He says that Pearl Harbor really dosen't count because Hawaii was not mainland U.S. and was a colony. The U.S. has slaughtered millions and millions of people from its inception as it exterminated the Indians, conquered half of Mexico, conquered the Philipines and Hawaii, intervened to support the slaughter of millions of poor people around the world. Europeans have also slaugtered millions of poor people around the world on even greater scale and up until 1945 spent a great deal of time slaughtering each other.

Chomsky asks: Why do they hate us? Well it's a complex question. He dismisses the self-serving bunkum about how they hate us because we are such a wonderful democracy or whatever. Instead he turns to the Wall Street Journal which several days after the massacres surveyed wealthy Arabs with close links to the West. They found that there was alot of resentment even amongst the upper classes at U.S. and Western propping up of feudal dictatorships which stiffle civil society and prevent development and which help send the oil wealth to the region away from their people and to the West.

They also, like the poor in the Arab world, are bitter about U.S. killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis while strengthening Saddam Hussein and his apparatus as well as continuing to provide Israel with advanced helicopters to massacre Palestinian civillians. The U.S. true committment to democracy in the Arab world was shown starkly in October when it was revealed that our kindly Secretary of State Mr. Powell had been pressuring the dictatorship in Qatar to "rein in" Al Jazeera, the only independent television station in the Arab world.

He also provides some very good stuff on the Sudan bombing in August 1998. Clinton's bombing of the Al-Shifa medical factory has according to wide estimates from impeccable sources killed tens of thousands of people who had made use of the factory which produced fifty percent of Sudan's medicine ,ninety percent of its most crucial medicines and all of its veternarian supplies. He also cites news reports that the Sudan had arrested two people in connection with the bombing of the African embassies in August 2000 which precipitated the bombing of Al-Shifa and had offered an immense database on Bin Laden and his top goons but because the U.S. state department so violently hated the Sudanese government they refused the offer and Sudan released the suspects after the bombing of Al Shifa.

He has an interesting response to a question from one of the interviewers in this book about the celebrating in Palestine or wherever else after September 11. He notes what the jubilation in the U.S. media after the U.S. backed Suharto seized power in Indonesia in 1965 and proceeded to slaughter at least a half a million "communists" i.e. landless peasants. Or when Nicaraguan voters finally voted out the Sandanistas after the U.S. proxy army had been deliberately destroying their civillian infrastrucure and killing thousands of civillians to the applause of the media. The U.S. of course escalated its terrorist war against Nicaragua, as similarly in El Salvador and Guatemala, in 1986 after Nicaragua obeying international law went to the World Court which ordered the U.S. to stop its slaugter and pay substantial reparations to Nicaraqua. Of course, Nicaragua is ruined probably forever. Its elections were recently subjected to gross interference on the part of the U.S. embassy which was campaiging for the ruling right wing party and against the now pro-capitalist and utterly decadent Sandanistas as having links with terrorist organizations.

Well, of course as he says the U.S. immediately ordered Pakistan to cut off truck shipments and food aid to Pakistan after Sept 11 over the intense objections over international relief agencies. The bombing campaign almost completely ended food assistance in Afghanistan. The U.S. air drops which according to news reports were suggested by PR advisors are very paltry among other problems compared to the seven million people who need assistance. Thousands almost certainly have already died, in addition to the possible thousands of civillian casualties.

....