Chomsky argues for an international rule of law; existing bodies such as the U.N. and World Court must be given credence and then relied upon.
React with extreme violence, he writes, and expect to escalate the cycle of violence, leading to still further atrocities such as the one that is inciting the call for revenge.
We have done more good for more people than any country in the history of the world and while nothing can justify crimes such as those of September 11, we can think of the United States as an innocent victim only if we adopt the convenient path of ignoring the record of its actions and those of its allies, which are, after all, hardly a secret.
For example, the United States happens to be the only state in the world that has been condemned by the World Court for international terrorism, would have been condemned by the Security Council, except that it vetoed the resolution. This referred to the U.S. terrorist war against Nicaragua, the court ordered the United States to desist and pay reparations. The U.S. responded by immediately escalating the crimes, including first official orders to attack what are called soft targets -- undefended civilian targets. This is massive terrorism. It is by no means the worst, and it continues right to the present, so for example...
The World Court condemned the United States for what it called "the unlawful use of force and violation of treaties." That's international terrorism. Furthermore, the escalation to attack undefended civilian targets is just a classic illustration of terrorism. And furthermore, it continues right to the present. Millions of refugees, tens of thousands of people killed, hideous repression, that's international terror, and we can go on and on.
As for why the attack happened, Chomsky exposes how this question is rarely raised in a serious way. And claims that to refuse to face this question is to choose to increase significantly the probability of further crimes of this kind.
Aren't you saying that you understand why America was targeted?
Yes, so does the U.S. intelligence services, so does all of scholarship. We can ignore it if we like, and therefore lead to further terrorist attacks, or we can try to understand. The United States has done some very good things in the world, and that does not change the fact that the World Court was quite correct in condemning the United States as an international terrorist state. You are correct when you say good things have happened, but if we are not total hypocrites, in the sense of the gospels, we will pay attention to our own crimes. For one reason, because that's elementary morality -- elementary morality. For another thing, because we mitigate them.
In 9-11, Noam Chomsky's comments on the September 11th attacks, the new war on terrorism, Osama bin Laden, U.S. 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, 9-11 demonstrates Chomsky's impeccable knowledge of U.S. 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. 9-11's analysis will affect debate for years to come, and will also be 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.
Chomsky made the interviewer look stupid and Chomsky slapped this scrub in the face.
You can't fuck with the Noam man.
bootleg42 3 years ago 6
Chomsky's a little riled up here. Good clip. Who's the journalist, though -- sort of a dope.
terpis 3 years ago 4