Chomsky, Noam. 9-11. 2001.

I've heard the argument that, because Noam Chomsky is calm and rational rather than screaming mad, he is not passionate or caring. I not only disagree, but believe that this book may end up being one of the least exploitative out of what will be many books about that horrible date.

This collection of interviews with Noam Chomsky that took place between the terrorist crimes of September 11th and the military attack on Afghanistan the following month makes the following arguments:

• Even without dropping bombs, simply by suspending foreign aid to the starving nation of Afghanistan, the U.S. may be sentencing to death far more innocent civilians then were killed in the U.S. on September 11th.

• What is meant in the U.S. media by "terrorism" is not terrorism, but terrorist attacks against the United States and its allies. Any full definition of terrorism would include a wider range of violent activities, such as the CIA's covert war against the civilians of Nicaragua in the 1980s.

• The terrorists who committed the crimes of September 11th had grievances more specific than "hating our freedom," and any response to the terrorists' actions that does not address their motives is unlikely to reduce terrorist sentiment.

• Under international law, there is a procedure to respond to the crimes, and (as in England and Ireland) there is a historical precedent for effectively eliminating terrorism. A military retaliation, on the other hand, against the Muslim world will answer Osama bin Laden's wildest dreams by increasing resentment of the United States.

George Bush says you are either with him or you are with the terrorists, but Noam Chomsky says killing innocent people is always bad.