Noam Chomsky is the most prominent exponents of the view that the 911 catastrophe was recompence for American terrorism. He has been a persistent critic of US foreign policy for over 3 decades who chief accomplishment has been to demonstrate the chief failing of the liberal critique of power. His political views prevent him from making the most basic of distinctions – between types of violence, and the variety of human purposes that give rise to them.
In his book, “9-11”, published with the smoke from the rubble of the fallen buildings still rising, Chomsky urges readers to bear in mind that the US is itself a leading terrorist state. In support of this claim he catalogues a number of American misdeeds, including the 1998 bombing of the phamaceuticals plant in Sudan, which may have been the ultimate cause of tens of thousands of innocent Sudanese dying of tuberculosis, malaria, and other treatable diseases.
According to Chomsky, the atrocity of 911 pales in comparison with what was perpetrated by the Clinton administration in the bombing of the pharmaceutical plant. But Chomsky neglects to ask himself one crucial question: What did the US think it was doing when it sent the missiles to Sudan? Destroying a chemical weapons plant used by Al Qaeda. Was our goal to bring about the death of as many Sudanese as possible? Of course not. We were not trying to kill anyone at all, unless we thought members of Al Qaeda would be at the plant in the middle of the night. Asking these questions to Osama bin Laden and the 19 hijackers puts us in a different moral universe entirely, and Chomsky knows it.
What can we draw about Chomsky’s intentions. He must be intentionally trying to draw gullible readers to espouse naive views that American foreign policy is corrupt and that 911 was just an instance of “turnaround is fair play”. One would expect better from the father of the cognitive revolution and one of the world’s greatest minds.
This same topic has been covered in a thread of the exact same name some months back.
Chomsky’s views on 9/11 are pathetic. Saying that, his views on linguistics (however popular in the academy) are pathetic. He’s really not as smart as many would like to think.
It depends on what we believe about the reasoning behind the bombings. It was a well known fact that the building was a pharmaceutical factory. The evidence to suggest that it was used by al-Qaeda has never been released, and even if it was the chemical “EMPTA”'s presence could be explained in other ways, such as the use of pesticides.
Seems like a sham reason to me, in which case the actions can be defined as terrorism.
Note, however, that there is no moral judgment inherent within terrorism…Some terrorists have been recognized as freedom fighters, and some have been down right scum-bags. It is just a military option available to all states/organizations, and generally employed by weak ones.
Moral of your story is you better be darn sure what you are blowing up is what you want to blow up, before you blow it up, and if you screw up, and blow up the wrong thing, than you best compensate for your mistake. You appear to be defending the immorality of the actions of the US? Man, if I got drunk and ran over your daughter, is this okay because it wasn’t my intentions to kill your daughter? Do our intentions change cause and effect? Do our intentions change our responsibility and need to be accountable?
I could be wrong, I think 911 is about a whole more than bombing a phamaceuticals plant in Sudan, but is it possible, if we had been accountable for blowing up a phamaceuticals plant in Sudan, and not only apologized, but also made sure the plant was rebuilt, and the medicine got to the needy people, 911 could have been prevented? If I were smoking on your couch and accidently burnt a hole in it, I am responsble for the damage. If I got drunk and drove over your daughter, I am responsible. Moral, we should take responsibility for our actions, because if we don’t, someone is apt to be unforgiving.
Arguements like yours makes the US a country the world needs to stop, because it is a country out of control, and so completely irresponsible, it is like the Greek story of young man driving the sun chariot across the skies. The young man had to be killed to stop the damage he was causing. A country that is excused of all wrongs, why? Don’t you see a problem with this?
A moral is above personal judgement. It is a law of cause and effect. Regardless of person’s reasoning, causing harm has a bad effect, that is what makes something immoral. It doesn’t matter if the bad effect hurts you or someone else. That doesn’t change the law.
The U.S. government has a propensity for resorting to bombing that kills innocent people. It refers to these people as “collateral damage.” The people killed are usually “foreigners.” It appears that our leaders value these people less because they are not American citizens. In terms of universals ethical principles this is immoral.
Bombing is chosen because it is safer for the American soldiers. But innocent people die. That is not morally acceptable. Many of the U.S’s military bombings in Afghanistan were of this nature to say nothing of Iraq. If the U.S. government found terrorists in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania would they drop a bomb on them from a B-29 that destroys a city block?
Thank you for your breath of reason. War is immoral, reqardless of who starts it, because moral is a law of cause of effect, not personal opinon. Dropping a bomb on Iraqis is not more moral than dropping a bomb on suspected terrorist in Philadelphia. However, dropping a bomb on LA Californa, might be justified? Considering all the sinfulness of that place.
No one, at least not I, is saying the US is innocent of misdeeds in the enforcement of its foreign policy. I’m just pointing out the difference between acts in furtherance of a cause gone awry and those inflicted for the sheer purpose of theater, instilling shock and fear.
I think we need better reasoning of what morality is. Everyone who fights a war does so for moral reasons. Genghis Khan was convinced of the moral superiority of Mongols, and commanded his people to never settle and begin accumulataing things, like those they invaded. He thought city people were terribly immoral because of their division of wealth that some left many in extreme poverty. A social order that lead to stealing and lying. The Mongols punished stealing and lying by death, but on the other hand, there was little reason to steal or lie, because people were sheltered and feed. The mongols had slaves, but treated their slaves as equals, as barbaric did, not understanding the order of civilization.
The harsh climate from which the Mongols came, was unfit for farming, so these people didn’t develop the mentality of farmers, until picking up a man from China who could write Khan’s history and commandments. The Mongols were raising every town in their path, returning the land to nature, until the China man convinced him to harvest the towns and city, by having them pay tribute.
The Mongols had a concept of a sky God, that just assume kill pathetic humans, and they thought the idea of a God who takes care people, ridiculus. He liked playing on this belief in a caring God. Before invading he would request tribute. If no tribute was paid, he would say “let God’s will be done”. The Christians made themselves even more powerless, by believing God had sent the Mongols to punish them for their sins.
Wars of defence are worthy of the description of “moral”. History is marked with a copious record of wars of plunder. The aggressor is typically moved by the desire to enhance its leibenstraum, wealth or power. Genghis Khan was moved by an instinct for conquest and glory. Sometimes the motive is revenge or a historical grevance. Often parties are moved by a belief that they are divinely mandated to spread their religion.
The Cold War was an instance where each party believed it represented an ethically higher political system and more expedient system of governance. But the number of wars predicated on spreading superior morals is few. Aggression and the moral instinct can coexist but seldom and only out of necessity.
By the way, I think that Chomsky’s political viewpoint provides a refreshing enlightened alternative to the establishment propaganda that dominates the media.
Oligarch? Why do you say that? I don’t think so. He is anti-corporate monopolization. Socialist? He has more democratic, anarchic leanings. He supports self determination. Appeasement? More like he’s against foreign adventurism which is what a lot of U.S. military actions have amounted to. The U.S. has tampered with virtually every nation on the planet in service of its interests. The U.S. has pitted nation against nation as we did in Afghanistan vs. the Soviet Union, Iraq vs. Iran, South Korea vs. North Korea. Some of these actions have backfired. Should we keep doing the same thing in service of the American Empire, should we perhaps consider a change in course? Either way we will be reaping the negative effects of the Bush administration for a generation or more.
Oligarch, power brokers who move behind the scenes to shift/supplant power/authority for their own agendas. He fits the bill quite nicely. Has nothing to do with corporation/anti-corporation, that would be aristocrat.
Trying to delineate socialist/democrat in the modern era is a hard stretch, and having read his material, he sounds just like the democratic demagogues, which in fact are pro-socialist, at least in America.
He’s all over appeasement, everyone is a unique and special butterfly to him. As far as any argument regarding political tampering, you need to check sources other than the media. You can’t find an economic power that doesn’t meddle in the affairs of others, including, but not limited, to the E.U., China and Russia.
We aren’t alone in that field, and any argument to the contrary is the agendising of the uninformed.
