I rate it 9/11.

This score indicates that I have a relatively high evaluation of something. It might be a movie, a book, a product, or an experience.

The number 9 out of 11 shows that there are aspects that I really like and appreciate. It could be the quality, the performance, the design, or the overall impact.

However, the score also implies that there are still some areas that could be improved or enhanced. Maybe there are some minor flaws or不足之处 that prevent it from getting a perfect score.

Overall, a 9/11 rating means that it is a very good thing, but there is still room for growth and development. It makes me look forward to seeing further improvements and refinements in the future.

I found this a truly stimulating read. It has managed to uncover a wealth of information that I was completely unaware of before.

It is truly impressive to see just how effective the western propaganda machines can be. They seem to have a knack for glossing over and spinning stories in such a way that they make themselves out to be the victims of terrorism. However, the reality is quite the opposite. In fact, they have been some of the worst offenders when it comes to some of the most heinous atrocities committed over the past sixty years or so.

There is always more to a story than meets the eye. We need to look beyond the surface and dig deeper to uncover the truth. This article has served as a reminder that we cannot always trust what we are told by the mainstream media. We must be vigilant and question everything in order to form our own informed opinions.

For a book that is admittedly kind of a rush job, consisting of a series of interviews done within a few weeks of the attacks, when we were still uncertain whether Bin Laden was responsible, it has held up rather well.

If you are familiar with Chomsky’s critiques of American foreign policy, there won't be much new here. This book is, instead, an attempt to popularize his basic views, contextualizing the 9/11 terrorist attack within the history of America’s own violent attacks on other nations.

Ironically, despite the serious tone and subject of this book, I often thought of a comical exchange between Chomsky and Sam Harris. Harris presents himself as a paragon of reason and tried to have a sober “exchange” of views with Chomsky, which quickly turned acrimonious as Chomsky wasn't in a friendly mood. However, this exchange does effectively pinpoint the ethical position that Chomsky is taking and that many people fail to understand.

The disagreement between them centers around the 1998 U.S. bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. Chomsky uses this as an example of American state terrorism and asks the reader what the response would be if the situation was reversed. Harris’s defense, which I believe is the standard argument in favor of U.S. intervention, is that our intentions were pure. We were just trying to stop terrorists from producing weapons.

Harris presents Chomsky with several thought experiments, making the point that intentions matter when making ethical judgments. But he overlooks the obvious point that there is a grey area between altruistic and hostile intentions, which, ethically speaking, is often hardly better than being actively hostile.

This describes the mentality behind the U.S. bombing of Al-Shifa. If we thought weapons were being produced in Brussels, we wouldn't have sent cruise missiles to blow up the building because the “collateral damage” would be unacceptable. But in the case of Sudan, a much poorer country, the decision was made quickly in favor of attack, showing an ethical stance of disregard.

A great deal of Chomsky’s critique of American foreign policy is an attempt to get us to consider all lives as equally valuable and all nations as equally sovereign, to stop applying a double standard. We are still far from this stance. If the 9/11 attack had originated in Ireland, what are the chances we would have invaded the entire country? As Chomsky points out, the U.K. didn't invade and bomb Boston even though many of its citizens funded the IRA.

We can see this uncaring attitude of American foreign policy in the August 29 bombing that killed 10 in Kabul this year, six of them children. Harris excuses “mistakes” like this by pointing to limitations in our intelligence and weapons technology. But being ethical means acting within the limitations of a situation and considering the possible negative consequences. No drone strike would have taken place in Brussels, but the possibility of killing innocent Afghanis is given little weight.

It is clear that we are dealing with a serious moral blindness that leads us to commit blunders and crimes. We seem to think everyone else will see past the accidental death and destruction and give us credit for our pure intentions. But what speaks louder: our beautiful words or the thousands of dead in our wake?

So ahh... it's an awkward read on the bus, let me tell you.

Regardless, it's an interesting look at the attack that changed the world in more ways than people admit.

Chomsky was pretty much bang on with his predictions and provides endless historical references and parallels to explain why he feared for what would happen.

The book doesn't get 5 stars because it is a bit repetitive, such is the nature of the book. It is a collection of interviews, after all.

However, it is still a good read for the Pol heads out there. It offers valuable insights into a significant event and the thoughts of a renowned intellectual.

The repetitive nature, while a drawback, also serves to emphasize certain points.

Overall, it's a worthwhile book that can expand one's understanding of the complex issues surrounding the attack and its aftermath.

Noam Chomsky is a renowned intellectual, and this latest work is yet another great read from him.

His analysis of the reaction by the US government and other world governments to the 9/11 attacks is extremely accurate and incisive.

If you have struggled to get through some of Chomsky's other more complex and dense books, then this one is a great choice for you.

Primarily, it is a reprint of a series of interviews, which makes it extremely accessible and easy to understand.

Chomsky's insights and perspectives on this important topic are sure to stimulate thought and discussion, and this book is a must-read for anyone interested in politics, international relations, and the events surrounding 9/11.

Whether you are a long-time fan of Chomsky or new to his work, this book is well worth your time and attention.

I'm truly impressed that Chomsky, right after 9/11, was able to recognize the numerous counter-currents in society. These counter-currents advocated for a more nuanced way to deal with the Taliban in order to combat Al-Qaeda. What's even more significant is that he immediately distinguished between the peaceful essence of the vast majority of Islam and the nature of the terrorists who carried out the attacks on us in its name.

I once had the great privilege of listening to Alan Story talk about non-violence. Alan, a South African minister, was conscripted into the South African army to assist in enforcing apartheid. Alan attempted to become a conscientious objector and was arrested by his government for this. One thing he said about foreign policy really struck me. He said, "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 find less devastating means to resolve that conflict were shockingly weak. To win the battle against radicalism and religious extremism, we require more than just a hammer in our toolbox.

These interviews, when taken as a whole, give the distinct impression of being an apology for the terrorism perpetrated by non-US entities.

Chomsky appears to always manage to identify a prior cause for the assaults targeted at America. He seems to show very little concern for the intentions behind such acts and instead focuses on a consequentialist perspective of the American-Middle East conflicts.

While it is true that the Americans might have made mistakes in their foreign undertakings, the author's strange ability, or rather inclination, to find an explanation or even an excuse for anti-Western sentiment seems disrespectful and misdirected.

Moreover, his dismissal of any religious or anti-modern motives for terrorist acts seems deliberately insincere, thus suggesting a less than completely impartial view on the international affairs of the US.

It is important to approach such complex issues with a more comprehensive and objective analysis, taking into account all the relevant factors and not simply trying to justify or downplay certain actions.

I really love Noaam.

He has such a unique and plain way of talking about politics that it actually makes me want to read more and more.

For example, the book "9/11" is something I can highly recommend to any female or male who doesn't have much background knowledge about politics.

Through reading it, I was able to understand how grand the U.S. is.

And as a post-modernist, I also felt the easiness of the myth about democracy.

However, it seems that there is no easy solution to the complex political issues.

Overall, Noaam's works have really opened my eyes and made me think more deeply about politics and society.

The book is a collection of journalistic attempts made by Noam Chomsky after the September 11 events with various newspapers around the world.

Chomsky attacks the excessive use of military rhetoric and the war policy against all those who do not side with Washington in their resort to violence. He warns his country of the temptation to kill thousands of innocent civilians.

Chomsky faces severe criticism from extreme American voices that call for vengeance and the destruction of governments. He shows that the victims of the attack, even if their number is large, are far fewer than the victims of US foreign policies and its excessive use of violence against the innocent.

He exposes the dark history of the United States, starting from the establishment of the Central Intelligence Agency of the Army, which waged a war with the agency against the Russian forces according to the American agenda, through the assistance of the Indonesian government that organized massacres of hundreds of thousands, which the intelligence agency compared to the crimes of Hitler and Stalin.

There is also the plan to economically, militarily and politically destroy Nicaragua, the destruction of the largest pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, which led to the death of thousands of innocent civilians from diseases that could have been easily treated, the role of the United States in the suffering of the Palestinian people through its unconditional and ultimate support for the Zionist entity, its role in the destruction of civil society in Iraq, as well as the killing of innocent civilians in the attack on Afghanistan, and the support for dictatorial regimes in all countries of the world.

He also cuts off humanitarian aid from Pakistan, which killed thousands of internal refugees as victims of the war. Moreover, Noam repeats in every instance that his country is the number one terrorist state in the world, as it is the only state condemned by the International Court of Justice for the illegal use of force to achieve political goals in Nicaragua, and it responded to the ruling with more military escalation against civilian targets such as hospitals and agricultural communities.

Noam emphasizes that US policies have targeted the innocent and increased their suffering. If the ideology of these peoples welcomes terrorist attacks, it is not surprising. He criticizes the failures of the intelligence agency because the State Department refused to cooperate with Sudan, which offered to hand over two suspects in connection with al-Qaeda, and then vehemently refused and then launched a military strike against Sudan, which angered it. The intelligence agency describes this refusal as the worst intelligence failure regarding the attack.

Chomsky's analysis of September 11, 2001 wasn't very compelling.

It seemed to lack any semblance of rigor, leaving the reader with a sense of dissatisfaction.

I felt as if I was left out in the cold, perhaps somewhere between the Mongolian-Chinese-Russian border.

Thankfully, there are plenty of other books on this subject that are much better.

They offer more in-depth research, better arguments, and a more comprehensive understanding of the events.

I would strongly advise you to pass this one up and look elsewhere.

Don't waste your precious time or hard-earned money on something that doesn't deliver.

Explore the other options available and you're sure to find a more satisfying and enlightening read.

Read "No Room For Further Burials."

One can't help but feel a mix of depression, boredom, and confusion.

Then, read this piece by Chomsky.

It will offer a profound understanding of what the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq truly look like from the perspective of the powerless and impoverished people who constitute the vast majority of those nations.

These are the individuals who bear the brunt of the conflict, whose lives are upended, and who often have no say in the decisions that lead to war.

Chomsky's insights provide a crucial counterpoint to the often one-sided and sanitized accounts presented in the mainstream media.

By examining the experiences of the ordinary people, we can gain a more accurate and empathetic understanding of the true costs and consequences of war.

This, in turn, can hopefully inspire us to work towards a more peaceful and just world.

Written shortly after the attacks themselves, it is truly fascinating to reexamine Chomsky's thoughts with the benefit of more than a decade's hindsight. He has been shown to be both highly farsighted and astutely perceptive. Virtually every aspect of his predictions has come to pass. The work delves into what the ideal response to these atrocious attacks should have been and what it was likely to be. It is indeed disheartening that he was proven right.

It could be contended that failing to offer a robust response to these attacks was a display of weakness. However, the case for a forceful response to the crimes of terror, within the bounds of international law, was well-presented and was indeed the only means to avoid an escalating cycle of violence. Demanding an immediate military response is easy and a natural impulse, but Chomsky advocates for a different route, learning from the lessons of history.

This might be regarded, with some contempt, as a liberal approach, but NC is equally critical of left-leaning intellectuals as he is of the hawkish stance.

I am not a great enthusiast of this style of book, which captures the outcomes of numerous interviews with international press and journalists. This makes the narrative somewhat repetitive and also requires notes to inform the reader of the context of a particular comment. For instance, explaining that the questioner was from France when making a point about that country's foreign policy agenda.

Overall, it is an interesting and relatively quick read.