I am always paranoid about bringing this type of book over the border.

Every time I consider carrying such a book with me when crossing the border, my mind starts to race with all kinds of what-ifs. What if the customs officials misunderstand the content? What if they think it contains something illegal or inappropriate?

The thought of being stopped, questioned, and potentially having my book confiscated makes me extremely nervous. I worry that it could cause unnecessary delays and complications during my journey.

Even though I have no intention of doing anything wrong, this paranoia still persists. It's as if there is a little voice in my head constantly warning me of the possible consequences.

Maybe I should just leave the book at home and avoid all the stress and worry. But then again, I really want to have it with me during my trip. It's a dilemma that I struggle with every time I face this situation.

It is truly surprising that a man who is so widely loathed in America has relatively few reviews for what appears to be his most controversial book. One wonders if Americans are perhaps a bit hesitant or even scared to admit to reading his works or listening to his ideas.

I was already aware, even before delving into this book, that the CIA had collaborated closely with the apartheid regime in Angola. This was something that came to light in South Africa not long after the advent of our new democracy. Therefore, when I finally read this book and came across its revelations, I wasn't overly shocked.

It seems that there is a certain level of discomfort or perhaps even a sense of denial when it comes to confronting the actions and associations of this particular individual. Maybe people are afraid of the backlash or the implications of openly acknowledging their interest in his work.

Nevertheless, the truth remains, and it is important to face these facts and have an open and honest discussion about them. Only then can we hope to learn from the past and move forward in a more informed and enlightened way.

This is yet another "controversial" book penned by Chomsky. However, for me, it is actually quite ordinary.

To fully comprehend the extremely alarming issue of the so-called "war on terrorism," we must take a close look at the impacts of the US crimes around the world.

Dialectics surely has a role to play when it comes to examining such an issue. We cannot simply view things from a one-sided perspective. Instead, we need to analyze and understand the complex web of relationships and contradictions involved.

By doing so, we can gain a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of the true nature of the "war on terrorism" and the actions of the US on the global stage.

This will enable us to make more informed decisions and take more appropriate actions to address this pressing issue.

A wonderful book for the philosopher and the free thinker is Noam Chomsky, which is a collection of interviews with him regarding the September 11th terrorism incident.

He talks about the government's, people's, and international responses.

And about the terrorism of the United States of America against the poor countries of the world or those that deviate from the rod of obedience.

The crimes of the United States are so extensive that they reach genocide and ethnic cleansing as happened in (Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Sudan, Nicaragua, Cuba... and much more that space does not allow to mention), and its allies among the Western countries are not innocent of these crimes.

This, in addition to their support for authoritarian governments that contributed to the killing of their people such as "Indonesia, Turkey...".

However, the hypocrisy of the international community considers the actions opposing the United States and its allies as "terrorism", while its crimes are "defense of national security and freedoms".

Noam Chomsky is a very, very great thinker. I bow to him with great respect.

In today's digital age, the amount of information available at certain moments can truly be overwhelming.

We are constantly bombarded with a plethora of data from various sources such as the internet, social media, news outlets, and more.

This flood of information can make it difficult for us to filter through and determine what is relevant and important.

Moreover, the sheer volume of information can cause stress and anxiety as we try to keep up and not miss anything crucial.

It is essential for us to develop effective strategies for managing and processing this vast amount of information.

This could include techniques such as setting boundaries, being selective about the sources we trust, and using tools to help us organize and prioritize the information.

By doing so, we can better cope with the overwhelming nature of the information age and make more informed decisions.

Typical Chomsky. His work is very dense, yet at the same time, it is extremely interesting. It is truly a pleasure to read about 9/11 from someone who views things from a global perspective. What is astonishing is that most of this was written merely a few days or weeks after the event that forever changed the world (a phrase that is a trademark of Fox, inc.). And some people are only now beginning to realize the things that Chomsky was discussing immediately following the event.

However, the only flaw I can detect is that since it is a compilation of articles, interviews, and so on, some of the material is repeated. Nevertheless, it is an excellent read that offers valuable insights and a unique perspective on one of the most significant events in modern history.

Noam Chomsky is often regarded as a prominent figure on the left. However, his stance on the 9/11 attacks, as presented in this book, is rather disappointing.

He seems to be a total wimp when it comes to analyzing this crucial event. Despite the abundance of evidence that should prompt him to question the "official" story, he fails to do so. His entire analysis of 9/11, which is mainly confined to this short and narrow-scoped book, constantly parrots the official line.

Chomsky does acknowledge the existence of the "truth" movement regarding 9/11, but he quickly dismisses them without much discussion of the facts of that day. It is sad that one of the most well-known "leftists" is too afraid to engage in a proper debate about 9/11, at least outside the limited framework of this book.

As a result of his lack of courage in analyzing the 9/11 attacks, I have lost a great deal of respect for Chomsky. Instead of recycling the same old "left" arguments, he could perhaps ask his MIT colleagues some important questions. For example, why did the three WTC buildings collapse in the exact same manner and defy the laws of physics?

These questions would make for a much more interesting discussion than what he presents in this book. Come on, Chomsky, grow some backbone and start challenging the status quo.

I didn't expect much from this book simply because it is just a collection of various interviews.

It was published one month after the attack, and that can be seen in the fact that the theories are not yet well-developed and they still lack that time of maturity which has led us to what we know now, more than a decade later.

Some ideas are very interesting, but it is very far from being an essential book.

However, it does offer a certain perspective on the events that took place. It gives us an insight into the initial thoughts and reactions of those involved or interviewed.

Although it may not be a comprehensive or definitive work, it can still be useful for those who want to explore the early stages of the story.

Perhaps with more time and further research, a more in-depth and detailed analysis could be made.

But as it stands, this book serves as a snapshot of a particular moment in time.

It reminds us that our understanding of complex events often evolves over time.

A collection of interviews with Chomsky by the international media took place immediately after 9/11. In these interviews, he delved into various aspects. He discussed the possible motivations behind the attack. He also analyzed American foreign policy and the potential response of the West at that time. The interviews did have some repetitiveness due to overlapping questions and answers. However, the dialogue was highly thought-provoking. One of Chomsky's most significant points was that we often engage in excessive American exceptionalism when it comes to terrorism and attacks on America. This leads us to overlook state-sponsored terror and harmful foreign policies targeted at other nations. As a result, our perspective on understanding "why they hate us" becomes skewed. By highlighting these issues, Chomsky encouraged a more comprehensive and objective examination of the complex situation.

As you would anticipate from a book that compiles Chomsky's interviews conducted just over a week after September 11th, his analysis is concise yet his responses are well-versed.

He firmly remains critical of US foreign policy, frequently referring back to past precedents, such as actions in Indonesia and Nicaragua. He contends that while the attack on the World Trade Center was a serious incident, America is the primary perpetrator of terrorism, reacting when the guns are pointed in its direction.

The book is short and repetitive in some parts, but it is a worthwhile read for gaining one man's perspective on foreign relations in 2001. It offers valuable insights into Chomsky's thoughts and views on a crucial and tumultuous period in world history.

His analysis challenges conventional wisdom and forces readers to consider alternative viewpoints on issues such as terrorism, US foreign policy, and international relations. Overall, it is a thought-provoking and engaging read that is sure to spark discussion and debate.

The 9/11 attacks were a tragic and defining moment in modern history. According to Noam Chomsky, they should have been treated as a crime rather than an act of war. He argues that if the American government wants to identify a perpetrator of terrorism, it should look in the mirror. Chomsky's book "9-11" consists of thirteen interviews he gave to journalists from various countries in the days following the attacks. The book offers his views without compromise or equivocation.

What drew me to this book initially was its timely publication. It was the first 9/11 book I saw, and its cover showing the Twin Towers before the attacks caught my attention. However, upon closer inspection, I noticed the publisher's note at the back, which provided some context for the book. Open Media was founded in opposition to the Gulf War, and this background helps to explain the often leading nature of the interviewers' questions and the strident quality of Chomsky's answers.

While I admire Chomsky's intellect and his repeated use of the term "atrocities" to describe the 9/11 attacks, I took issue with some of his assertions. For example, his claim that the U.S. is a leading terrorist state seemed inappropriate so soon after the attacks. However, there were also elements of his argument that I could not gainsay. His remarks about religious fundamentalism in the U.S. and the West, and his prediction about the likely U.S. response to the 9/11 attacks, were both prescient.
In conclusion, Chomsky's "9-11" is a controversial book that will no doubt spark debate among readers. While I disagreed with much of what he said, I also found myself thinking deeply about his arguments. His logic is strict and his conclusions follow from his premises, even if I think those premises are flawed. In the end, this book serves as a reminder of the importance of truth, honesty, and concern for the human consequences of our actions.

Ugh.

Mad rantings with footnotes (which usually refer back to nothing more 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.

He 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.

This doesn't say much for the courage of the man's convictions.

It seems that Chomsky's writing is more about promoting his own agenda rather than presenting a balanced and objective view.

His constant criticism of the U.S. and his support for those who are often considered enemies of the state raise questions about his true motives.

Perhaps he is simply trying to gain attention or make a name for himself in the political arena.

Whatever the case may be, it is clear that his writing should be taken with a grain of salt.