Scan barcode
djfreshjams's review against another edition
4.0
some of chomsky's analyses and predictions were extremely prescient, and others less so (like the idea that the american people wouldn't allow the government to use terrorism as an excuse to infringe on the freedoms of its citizens).
robertrivasplata's review against another edition
4.0
Noam Chomsky's views on what we could have done differently in 2001, taken from interviews in the month after 9-11. Also provides a window on to what a wasted opportunity we had in the 1990s.
cpa85's review against another edition
3.0
This is really just a collection of written interviews book-ended by two essays. Chomsky argues a whole collection of very valid points with plenty of historical information in support, but I find his writing style often difficult to follow smoothly. The combination of his unusual and complex sentence structure with incredibly dry and deadpan sarcasm cause me a bit of frustration at times.
Overall, from a content standpoint this book is fantastic. I just struggled with the style and composition, I guess.
Overall, from a content standpoint this book is fantastic. I just struggled with the style and composition, I guess.
inquiry_from_an_anti_library's review against another edition
dark
informative
reflective
sad
tense
fast-paced
4.0
US policies which are claimed to be taken to protect its citizens create the very conditions which further threaten its citizens. Operations which are claimed to provide credibility to US action ended up destabilizing and radicalizing many nations. Chomsky see that many nations see the terrorist actions as a just war of resistance against an invading army. In many cases, the actions would be considered crimes should the US law apply to its own actions. Crimes and violations are crimes and violation no matter who commits them. Rules apply to all, with them being able to be invoked against those who laid them down. The way a nation presents record of judging defendants will be used as the principle of judging the nation in the future.
While the Bush administration sent suspected militants to detention camps, the Obama administration killed them. Both are not in accordance with international law, but killing suspected militants using drones is an act of terrorism on a populous. There have been numerous US operations which lead to the death of many innocence to target supposed criminal without providing proof of crime to the international court. The US invaded countries whose targets are not serious threats causing radicalization within the countries as they saw military as an attack on their religion.
The way a state should try to resolve a conflict is best illustrated by Nicaragua. When Nicaragua was subject to violent assault in the 1980’s by the US, the Nicaraguan government went to the World Court. Although the World Court ruled in favor of Nicaragua, the US government dismissed the judgment and escalated the attacks. Nicaragua then went to the Security Council which asked the US to observe international law, which was vetoed by the US. A third attempt to cease US hostility was made at the General Assembly but with no different result.
When dealing with internal affairs, actions are taken to identify precisely who was at fault and the reasons behind the terror events. When dealing with foreign affairs, claims of who is at fault is enough with suspicious and little to no effort understand why there was a need to resort to terror. Rather than to vindicate claims to elucidate circumstances, the US holds international human rights laws in contempt. Without hearing the reasons and motives behind supposed innocent or guilty, the actions taken are not remembered with pride.
The goal of bin Laden was to get Americans into small but expensive wars which will bankrupt the government. US presidents continuously fell into bin Laden’s plan. Bin Laden could not radicalize many without the interventions of the US making the US his only indispensable ally. The raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound was a violation of international law from the invasion itself to the planned assassination.
The US supports hatred and violence when directed at enemies, but does not appreciate the hatred it nurtured turned against it. Strategies included pressuring allies to stop supplying arms to an area in the hope that the area would seek to supply itself via an enemy of US, thereby providing the appropriate propaganda for more violence. Normally, the sovereignty of states is revoked when they provide sanctuary to terrorists. Chomsky finds that the US is self-immunized against international law and conventions.
Without defeat of forced to acknowledge reality, powerful states tend to suppress their own crimes. War on terrorism does not actually target terrorism because the Western power do not abide by their own official definition of the term. The actions of the US make the US appear as a leading terrorist state by the US own definition. Terrorism is a weapon being used by the most powerful nation. US stance on international affairs is leading to greater violence. US is the only country condemned for international terrorism by the World Court. Following the international rules leads to stability with the alternative being to react with extreme violence thereby escalate the cycle of violence.
While the Bush administration sent suspected militants to detention camps, the Obama administration killed them. Both are not in accordance with international law, but killing suspected militants using drones is an act of terrorism on a populous. There have been numerous US operations which lead to the death of many innocence to target supposed criminal without providing proof of crime to the international court. The US invaded countries whose targets are not serious threats causing radicalization within the countries as they saw military as an attack on their religion.
The way a state should try to resolve a conflict is best illustrated by Nicaragua. When Nicaragua was subject to violent assault in the 1980’s by the US, the Nicaraguan government went to the World Court. Although the World Court ruled in favor of Nicaragua, the US government dismissed the judgment and escalated the attacks. Nicaragua then went to the Security Council which asked the US to observe international law, which was vetoed by the US. A third attempt to cease US hostility was made at the General Assembly but with no different result.
When dealing with internal affairs, actions are taken to identify precisely who was at fault and the reasons behind the terror events. When dealing with foreign affairs, claims of who is at fault is enough with suspicious and little to no effort understand why there was a need to resort to terror. Rather than to vindicate claims to elucidate circumstances, the US holds international human rights laws in contempt. Without hearing the reasons and motives behind supposed innocent or guilty, the actions taken are not remembered with pride.
The goal of bin Laden was to get Americans into small but expensive wars which will bankrupt the government. US presidents continuously fell into bin Laden’s plan. Bin Laden could not radicalize many without the interventions of the US making the US his only indispensable ally. The raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound was a violation of international law from the invasion itself to the planned assassination.
The US supports hatred and violence when directed at enemies, but does not appreciate the hatred it nurtured turned against it. Strategies included pressuring allies to stop supplying arms to an area in the hope that the area would seek to supply itself via an enemy of US, thereby providing the appropriate propaganda for more violence. Normally, the sovereignty of states is revoked when they provide sanctuary to terrorists. Chomsky finds that the US is self-immunized against international law and conventions.
Without defeat of forced to acknowledge reality, powerful states tend to suppress their own crimes. War on terrorism does not actually target terrorism because the Western power do not abide by their own official definition of the term. The actions of the US make the US appear as a leading terrorist state by the US own definition. Terrorism is a weapon being used by the most powerful nation. US stance on international affairs is leading to greater violence. US is the only country condemned for international terrorism by the World Court. Following the international rules leads to stability with the alternative being to react with extreme violence thereby escalate the cycle of violence.
carmenrm's review against another edition
4.0
La cantidad de información en algunos momentos llega a ser abrumadora
guojing's review against another edition
4.0
Typical Chomsky.
Wouldn't have minded some more footnotes and an expanded bibliography, but what can be expected from a book that was clearly copied-and-pasted together immediately following 9/11?
Contrary to some of the very frequent criticisms I have encountered against Noam, he does not hate America and he does not support tyranny abroad; this is a weak argument made by blind überpatriotic Americans who have totally bought into the propaganda that America = Good, Everyone Else = Evil, that nothing America does is for anything but the most humanitarian, pro-democratic reasons. As far as I can tell, he hates hypocrisy and he hates assaults on human rights, which are two very worth-while things to hate.
That said, the book itself is somewhat boring; it is derived from a series of interviews which took place within a month of 9/11 by various reporters from around the western world, and so the statements made by Noam tend to be repetitive and thus tedious. But, from already so short a book, to remove any of this repetition would be to turn an already short 120-page book into a 75-page book. Numerous important points are made in the text, things which are too far removed from the public consciousness and deserve being realigned. Unfortunately, that is probably never to happen, or at least not in this generation; it seems that it always takes future generations to look back and curse the deeds of forefathers, rather than the deeds of oneself or even of the previous generation.
Wouldn't have minded some more footnotes and an expanded bibliography, but what can be expected from a book that was clearly copied-and-pasted together immediately following 9/11?
Contrary to some of the very frequent criticisms I have encountered against Noam, he does not hate America and he does not support tyranny abroad; this is a weak argument made by blind überpatriotic Americans who have totally bought into the propaganda that America = Good, Everyone Else = Evil, that nothing America does is for anything but the most humanitarian, pro-democratic reasons. As far as I can tell, he hates hypocrisy and he hates assaults on human rights, which are two very worth-while things to hate.
That said, the book itself is somewhat boring; it is derived from a series of interviews which took place within a month of 9/11 by various reporters from around the western world, and so the statements made by Noam tend to be repetitive and thus tedious. But, from already so short a book, to remove any of this repetition would be to turn an already short 120-page book into a 75-page book. Numerous important points are made in the text, things which are too far removed from the public consciousness and deserve being realigned. Unfortunately, that is probably never to happen, or at least not in this generation; it seems that it always takes future generations to look back and curse the deeds of forefathers, rather than the deeds of oneself or even of the previous generation.
philboydstudge's review against another edition
5.0
This book is a destroyer of US pride and indoctrination.