Rating: 
Summary: A more complete vision of 9-11 than what the media gave
Review: "9-11" is a collection of interviews with Noam Chomsky, the internationally respected political commentator, given shortly after the attacks of September 11th, 2001. In these interviews Noam puts the attacks in the perspective of decades of US abuses of power, and points out that much of the world considers the United States a leading terrorist organization. (One interviewer asks Chomsky to comment on the fact that some in other lands celebrated the attacks. Chomsky reminds that the US has at times celebrated attacks on other lands that have killed thousands of innocent people as well.) Please don't mistake Chomsky's comments for sympathy for the attacks on New York or Washington. Chomsky readily agrees that the attacks are terrible - "horrendous" is the word he uses. But he warns that a swift and violent retaliation by the US is exactly what bin Laden would like so as to recruit others to - what Chomksy again describes as - his "horrendous" cause. All Chomsky is asking is that we look to cause and effect and accountability: the US has been violent to other countries, and the violence has now come to the US (Chomsky notes that, sadly, it is not the scale of the attacks, i.e., the amount of people killed, that makes September 11th stand out, but the fact that for the first time in a long time the guns were pointed at a superpower nation). Violence is wrong, Chomsky says. So all sides need to take a look at themselves and realize that violence only breeds violence.
Rating:
Summary: An explanation is not an excuse
Review: "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?
Rating:
Summary: Antidote to the mainstream news coverage
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: The political Chomsky
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Facts and Logic
Review: Chomsky is as articulate as ever in condemning the attacks of 9/11 while providing some historical background and explaining how the US might respond if it had any respect for International Law. It certainly does not justify the attacks, but it is important to note that the widespread hatred for the US among Arab and Islamic peoples stems not from their "hatred of freedom" as Bush Jr. would have us believe, but from very concrete aggressive actions taken by the US and its client states against the people of the Middle East, including the Palestinians, Iraqi civilians and dissidents, and the people living under corrupt and repressive governments in states like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and Algeria, to name but a few. Does this rationalize the attacks of 9/11? Never. Does it make them OK? Never. After the OKC bombing, did we bomb Elohim City? The Idaho panhandle? Did we bomb the Michigan militia as part of the "network of terror" that supported McVeigh? No. We found the guilty parties, tried them, and punished them. The media, meanwhile, explained what motivated them. Did Waco justify the OKC bombing? Never. Is it important to understand the motivation? Yes. Why did we attack Iraq in 1991 to get it to retreat to Internationally recognized borders and to abide by UN resolutions? Why not hold Israel to the same standard? Instead, we provide Israel with billions in military and economic aid, and helicopter gunships to be used in assassinations and state terrorism, like the terrorism committed against the refugees in the Sabra and Shattila refugee camps under the direction of Ariel Sharon in 1981, and the terrorism that continues to be directed against Palistinian refugees in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. Why did we mine the harbors of Nicaragua and provide the mercenary Contras with a CIA-produced manual on assassination, torture, and terrorism techniques to be used against "soft targets" like farmers and villagers? Why, when ordered to stop by the World Court and UN Security Council, did we escalate our campaign of terror? And why do we refuse to extradite Emmanuel Constant, terrorist leader of Haitian death squads believed to have killed 4000-5000 people? Despite overwhelming evidence provided by the Haitian government (far more than we have provided agaist Bin Laden) the US government has systematically refused to extradite Constant. These are important questions that must be asked, and must be understood if we are to speak of terrorism in a non-hypocrital way. Perhaps Chomsky's most important lesson in this book is the understanding that the popular definition of terror (and the one used by our government and most of the media) depends not on the ferocity or viciousness of the act, or the innocence of its victims, but whether it's rich people attacking poor people or poor people attacking rich people. For those who condemn this book (and have actually read it), show me one fact that Chomsky states that is not correct, or one single conclusion that does not draw logically from those facts. I'll bet you can't do it. Facts and logic sound very strange when you're used to hearing the voices of the Corporate media on ABC and CNN and Fox. Even the New York Times is not speaking the truth or asking important questions. Thank God we have Chomsky to supply us with what our media environment so desperately lacks: facts, and logic.
Rating:
Summary: Wake Up!
Review: Thousands of people died in the September 11th attacks yet not many in America seem to care WHY. Well I care and Chomsky cares and you should too so that it won't have to happen again. Other reviewers have more eloquently stated why this is a most important book. Short and to the point because there is nothing complicated and long winded about why those horrible attacks took place. It is all out there in broad daylight for anyone who wants to wake up and look. I love it here in America, but make no mistake that everyday people all over the world die for American interests. You don't [tick] someone off enough to want to kill themselves by being the "brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world", you do it by being the exact opposite. Years of death, starvation and oppressive economic embargos led to those attacks. How do you cash in on 9/11 by selling a book for [money]??? You don't. Others have though with their [expensive] coffee table photo albums (now that's disgusting) and their [even more expensive] terrorist emergency kits. There will always be a market for big color pictures of death and destruction. Too bad there never seems to be much of one for preventing it. Popular media won't talk to him so Chomsky has to publish his thoughts in print in a little pamphlet that every American should read.
Rating: 
Summary: Will probably open some eyes
Review: Much of what I read here I was already aware of, that being the American public, by and large, has no idea what our government has been doing abroad in our name for the last 30 years or so. Chomsky's commentary can be summed up as this, I think: while the American people didn't 'have this coming', our country's hands certainly aren't clean. Chomsky details the shady alliances our government has made in the past, most notably with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, who now of course are our mortal enemies. We helped both of these individuals with training and technology, something that doesn't get much emphasis on television. I think one of the more salient points Chomsky makes is that we (the US) believe we have the freedom to act any way we wish, and that the rules (of the so-called 'international community') don't really apply to us, even though we say we support them. International law, Chomsky says, should apply to all states -- as well it should. Conservative talk radio likes to dismiss people like Chomsky as left wing ideologues who "hate America". Read this book and judge for yourself. I don't agree with everything Chomsky says, but his arguments are certainly well thought out. His responses are, in my mind, better than what we've gotten as the official reasons for the attacks from our government, viz., that these people are just "evil", or that they "hate our freedom". At least Chomsky doesn't insult your intelligence.
Rating:
Summary: As expected from Chomsky
Review: A very worthy point of view for those searching for an understanding of the global position of the U.S. today.
Rating:
Summary: So many terroist groups actually out there.
Review: I've liked the issues that Chomsky raises for a while now and feel this book does not falter with this intellects mind you can always empathise with chomsky and really feel the passion behind whatever issue he raises even if they are at times faux (which by the way every human is) so this desrves 5 as it's an insite into chomsky through a well conducted interview. I feel that with 9-11 been such a sensitive issue for many Americans and people across the world that there was no offense directed at the public only at the leaders of such organisations and terroist groups which is one of many things that chomskys 9-11 conducts well. And the book is not to patriotic as i feel patriotism is where the American leaders have been going wrong for a long time now so congratulations to Chomsky on handling a sensitive subject well and on digging up whats dark in the world in a lucid way.
Rating:
Summary: Chomsky on 9.11 and the conflicts surrounding it
Review: 9-11 is a slim volume that collects interviews with the US's leading dissident thinker, Noam Chomsky, following the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Chomsky's views are what one would expect. He condemns the attacks but notes that hatred of the West caused by the US's disruption of Muslim society should not be ignored. Despite the enormously important new developments, most of this publication's arguments have already been presented in the author's other works concerning the Middle East. Still, this volume stands as a valuable volume in the September 11th library. Chomsky has accurately been called America's conscious and that was a more valuable role than ever in the days following the attacks. 9-11 offers peaceful, sensible ways for the US to lower the threat from the Middle East; examines the concept of terrorism from a view unspoiled by an us-vs-them mentality and unravels many of the myths surrounding Muslim extremists and their motives. Chomsky is one of the US's greatest thinkers and his commentary concerning the September 11th attacks and the continuing conflict of which they are a part should be appreciated.
| 
