❮Reading❯ ➶ 9-11 Author Noam Chomsky – Freepe.co

In , Noam Chomsky Comments On The September Th Attacks, The New War On Terrorism, Osama Bin Laden, US Involvement With Afghanistan, Media Control, And The Long Term Implications Of America S Military Attacks Abroad Informed By His Deep Understanding Of The Gravity Of These Issues And The Global Stakes, Demonstrates Chomsky S Impeccable Knowledge Of US Foreign Policy In The Middle East And South Asia, And Sheds Light On The Rapidly Shifting Balance Of World Power Speaking Out Against Escalating Violence, Chomsky Critically Examines The United States Own Foreign Policy Record And Considers What International Institutions Might Be Employed Against Underground Networks And National States Accused Of Terrorism S Analysis Still Stands As A Measure Of How Well The Media Is Able To Serve Its Role Of Informing The Citizenry, So Crucial To Our Democracy In Times Of War


10 thoughts on “9-11

  1. says:

    I m impressed that Chomsky, in the immediate wake of 9 11, recognized the many counter currents in society that advocated a 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 tools in our toolbox than a hammer.


  2. says:

    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 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.


  3. says:

    Ugh Mad rantings with footnotes which usually refer back to nothing 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.


  4. says:

    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 mind blowing that these interviews were said than a decade ago.


  5. says:

    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.


  6. says:

    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 recordthe 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.


  7. says:

    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 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.


  8. says:

    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


  9. says:

    Written shortly after the attacks themselves, it is interesting to review Chomsky s thoughts with the advantage of 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.


  10. says:

    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.