No comments about Conspiracy, Politics, and a Disorderly Border: The Struggle to Comprehend Insurgency in Thailand's Deep South.

4 comments about The Palestinians: In Search of a Just Peace.

1. Cheryl A. Rubenberg gives readers an accurate picture of the conflict in her 450 page paperback packed with information. The Palestinians: In Search of a Just Peace is a book of great research and logic. She points out the truth that "perceptions of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are so deeply imbued with biases and stereotypes-typically unrecognized as such-that we often do not grasp the fundamental issues." Simply put, if you get this book you will grasp the fundamental issues.
   
   Her central focus is the so called Oslo "peace process" but she covers the whole of the conflict from the beginning to the present with powerful examples that go under-reported to unreported here in America and includes in her endnotes other startling facts that never get exposed in mainstream discussions. Her thesis is brutally honest: Israel never intended to withdraw from the Occupied Territories based on UN Security Council Resolution 242 and Israel never intended on permitting a genuinely independent Palestinian state.
   
   Facts that pro-Israeli and some pro-Palestinian writers leave out she doesn't shy away from. Readers will learn things that might shock them if they have relied on the dishonest sources and media presentations that dominate public perceptions. With the book you will get the full picture. You will learn not only what Israel has been up to but also how the Palestinian Authority, with its corruption and repression, "has contributed significantly to the deterioration of Palestinian society."
   
   It is important for Americans to learn the horrific examples of Zionist cruelty. This book is really well written and gives a good sampling of events PLUS the endnotes contain even more cases of barbarism that may just open the eyes of some willing to act like a human being and not a robotic apologist for the "Jewish State."
   
   The examples of what one can find in her endnotes are really shocking and she exposes attempts to suppress it. Read about Irgun's savagery in details you may never have heard before, this is what Deir Yassin was: "... on April 9. 1948, Menachem Begin's Irgun massacred 254 people-mostly old men, women, and children-then mutilated, raped, disemboweled, and paraded their corpses through the streets of Jerusalem." (from endnote 51) She notes that this was not an isolated incident.
   
   And she points out that Begin bragged about this "triumph" when he wrote about it in his book published in 1951 but he removed reference to it in a revised edition of his book in 1977.
   
   For those who thought it was only the Palestinians who fled and were refused entry back into Israel that lost property and land without reparations, this book is a wake up call. In the first 8 years, the Jewish State took away a staggering 50% of all the land owned by Palestinians remaining in Israel. The shocking fact is some 39,000 Palestinians who never left were robbed anyway! "Israel seized property an land from some 39,000 Palestinians who escaped expulsion and remained in Israel. It was never retuned, and these individuals never received compensation although they are citizens of Israel." (from endnote 67)
   
   If you want to know what you are talking about when it comes to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, this is the book for you. Rubenberg spells it out clearly, buy The Palestinians: In Search of a Just Peace today.



2. Rubenberg tells us she wants justice. Well that's nice. I want justice. For everyone. I want human rights, including rights to life, liberty, and property. For everyone. As near as I can tell, Rubenberg does not.
   
   If you are reading this review and are not so sure that I am being fair in making such statements, I challenge you to pretend that you do not know whether you are a Christian, Jew, Muslim, or Pagan. That you do not know whether you are a soldier or a civilian. That you do not know what nationality you are. Pretend that you'll find out only after you decide what fairness and justice are. Then decide what is fair and just. If you do that and still read Rubenberg's book, I think you'll quickly see how far Rubenberg is from advocating justice.
   
   Without justice, there are no rights. Without truth, there is no justice. And, having read her book, it seems to me that Rubenberg can't stand truth. She starts by making misleading statements about demography and land ownership. She skips the entire history of Arab attacks on Jews and replaces it with absurd fabrications about Zionism's purpose, intentions, and history. At all times, she appears to oppose both justice and human rights and seems ready to fight to the last Arab to hurt Israel.
   
   Rubenberg doesn't like Arafat either, blaming him for agreeing to negotiate with Israel about the disputed territories. And, of course, she does not like the United States, a nation that to her is under the thumb of the infamous Zionist Lobby and is therefore unwilling to oppose any Israeli policies. It makes me wonder why she bothered accepting her position at Florida International University in the first place.
   
   I found it embarrassing that a fellow human being could be so dishonest and nasty.
   
   Still, I have to admit that I did read the book, and all her notes. She says that perhaps the best account of the history of Jerusalem is the one by Karen Armstrong. I had just read it!
   
   Avoid both books.



3. Contrary to the vague and ambiguous accusations leveled by other reviewers who have supposedly read the book, the content of this book is completely even-handed in its criticisms of everybody who is harming ordinary Palestinians. One could even do a Rawlsian-style thought experiment - as Jill Malter advocates - and come away with this conclusion.
   
   In some chapters Rubenberg provides ample statistics regarding the daily property destruction, colonization, and targeting of Palestinian civilians (by Israeli military and settlers alike) occurring in the Occupied Territories. Then in other chapters, she issues devastating critiques of the thuggish corruption and nepotism of the Palestinian Authority. Her balanced criticism of all parties leaves no doubt that her work is not "anti-jewish" or "anti-israeli," but rather pro-Palestinian -- excoriating any practice or party that inhibits the Palestinian people's basic human rights as provided by international human rights and humanitarian laws.
   
   Rubenberg does an outstanding job at filling in the gaps in knowledge that the media creates through their reporting patterns (it may be understandable that suicide bombings garner countless hours of coverage while the uprooting of Palestinian citrus trees or the sealing of Palestinian homes garner none, but it is unfortunate nontheless). As such, it is a treasure.
   
   It is certainly telling that those who criticize the book cannot cite anything specificically wrong in its analysis, and instead just whine about the what they perceive as the implicit messages of the book.



4. Cheryl Rubenburg provides a detailed yet gripping description of the plight of the Palestinians. For those of us who are not scholars of the history or politics of the Middle East, it is quite a significant challenge to provide an accurate and very detailed account of the facts and circumstances regarding this pivotal conflict without creating tedious reading. Cheryl Rubenberg accomplishes this task with a sense of mastery. The scholarship behind the book does not get in the way of enticing one to read on. I found this book to be extremely informative and very deeply disturbing - I could not put it down. Each chapter is supported by numerous citations from highly reputable sources for those wishing to pursue their scholarship. This is a very timely and deeply moving book that all Americans should read, so that we may better find our way forward in re-shaping our foreign policy.

3 comments about A Just Response: The Nation on Terrorism, Democracy, and September 11, 2001 (Nation Books).

1. An overview of some of the contents found in this book, a collection of writings from The Nation magazine written in the few months after the 9-11 massacres.

   William Greider, Bill Moyers and others address corporate knavery since 9-11.

   Katha Pollit asks why we have to fund barbaric dictatorships like the one in Saudi Arabia and oppose progressive forces in the ME. She points to the really unbelievably courageous work of the Revolutionary Women of Afghanistan, operating for years within Afghanistan as fierce opponents of both the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. She also staggers humanity by explaining why she would not allow her daughter to fly an American flag out their living room window.

   Victor Navasky calls for Ann Coulter to be host of "Politically Incorrect" instead of Bill Maher. Coulter was fired by The National Review Online for saying racist things that not a few readers of that great publication probably believe but don't say so loudly publicly. On the other hand Bill Maher immediately backtracked after his infamous comments after a few advertisers for his show withdrew and he said he didn't mean what he said he loves our military people and so on. At least, he says, Miss Coulter was actually being politically incorrect in contrast to the whimpy centrist liberal Maher.

   Chalmers Johnson, the former CIA analyst, has a particularly powerful piece. He quotes the U.S. Space Command's document "Vision for 2020": "the globalization of the world economy will also continue, with a widening between the 'haves' and the have-nots." He quotes the eminent senator from Georgia, the Hon. Zell Miller, as saying on the day after 9/11 that he didn't care if there was "collateral damage," lets bomb the hell out of everybody. He notes that collateral damage is one of those terms that isued to describe our destruction of Iraqi and Serb civillians by our high-flying plains. And that this might have been the term that our ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, might have used while he was helping coordinate the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Central Americans in the 80's while Ambassador to Honduras.

   Richard Falk outlines his case for the attack on Afghanistan being a "just war." Numerous letters are printed in response to this including from Howard Zinn. The latter writes about the effects of our bombing: bloody young children staggering accross the Pakistani border, enitre villages and families wiped out, the evil cluster bombs, a red cross warehouse bombed.

   Noam Chomsky quotes the New York Times about U.S. pressure on the military oligarchy running Pakistan to close its border to truck convoys carrying food to Afghanistan. He quotes from various aid agencies which condemned the American bombing as exacerbating the humanitarian disaster by blocking the distribution of desperately needed food aid. The 2001 Fall harvest in Afghanistan was 80 percent disrupted. Other contributors point to the sleaziness of the public relations gesture in dropping 37,000 food packets a day on a population where seven million were needing food. He refers to the massive refugee exodus from the American terror bombing of Kandahar and Herat into land-mine infested rural areas. He quotes from Michael Kinsley, Time magazine and other open supporters of the U.S. terrorist war against Nicaragua in the 80's as they openly advocated terrorist methods that would bring "democracy" there i.e. to terrorize the Nicaguan people into voting the Sandanistas out in 1990.

   Alexander Cockburn points out that we on the anti-war left support eradicating Bin Ladenism. It's just that the so-called "war on terrorism" is only going to increase it over the long run. He like alot of other of the contributors, argue for non-violent legal means to aprehend the perpetrators of 9-11 such as through the international criminal court, the UN, coordinated international police work and so on.

   Robert Fisk has an article from September 1998 about his interviews with Bin Laden. He quotes Bin Laden as calling the Israeli massacre of the refugees at Qana in 1996 "international terrorism" and calling for trials for the perpetrators. "Clinton used almost exactly the same words about bin Laden and his supporters in August [1998]. But the deaf, as usual, were talking to the deaf." Bin Laden lays out in the midst of ranting, in which he curiously accuses the Saudi regime of financing the defunct radical "communist" regime of North Yemen, his view that the slaughter of Iraqis because of the sanctions as a "war against Islam."

   Fisk and Michael Massing write about the barbaric Northern Alliance led by the late Ahmad Shah Masood and Abdul Rashid Dostum and how they raped and plundered and bombed Afghanistan 1992-96, making people willing to accept the Taliban takeover.

   Christopher Hitchens boldly shows that the Bin Ladenists are not misguided freedom fighters but barbaric terrorists. Of course nobody is actually contesting that notion and...oh why bother. Michael Massing's account of the critique of U.S. foreign policy of Fareed Zakaria and even Falk's deeply flawed arguments are much better ...

   This book, inevitably, is becoming a little bit dated as time goes on for none of the articles are after December 2001 but the arguments in it still hold power.




2. I read this book when I was writing a report on the causes of 9/11, and it had some good stuff in there, but some of it was pretty crappy. There's better resources.



3. This multitude of writers, in a conglomeration by The Nation Magazine, have put together some extremely powerful arguments regarding the US response to the 9/11 attacks. Sadly, however, The Nation Magazine itself has lost its way and the lucid points articulated throughout this book are now lost, along with all the rhetoric about why we sent our military to the Middle East, resulting in the mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings.
   
   Most of these writers hit the nail right on the head by repeatedly pointing out that "nothing resembling proof of bin Laden's responsibility for the September 11 attack has yet been put forward either by the United States or its subordinate in Downing Street".
   
   There is a reason for this. There is no proof.
   
   The astute Alexander Cockburn chimes in that there may be a similarity to Pearl Harbor that no one has yet mentioned: "The possibility of a Japanese attack in early December of 1941 was known to U.S. Naval Intelligence".
   
   Anybody see a pattern here, as regards to the information the masses (proles) get from their gov't?
   
   The pattern is LIES, and BIG ones! In other words, 9/11 was not a surprise and it had nothing to do with bin laden. But the perpetual war has been raging now for 7 long years. And the American/British corporate states are very happy about that.

No comments about Security in the New Europe.

5 comments about Rogue Regimes: Terrorism and Proliferation.

1. Rogue Regimes is a great book for anyone with an interest in foreign policy. Those with little familiarity of the subject can enjoy the book's anecdotes and clear explanations of underlying theory. Policy experts can appreciate the detailed first-hand experiences Tanter recalls.

   Rogue Regime's focus on economic sanctions and their role in foreign policy is a refreshing change from the usual military-capabilities work I have read. Rogues Regimes suffers mildly from not discussing China. Despie that deficiency, I think Rogue Regimes was well-executed and an important read to those with an interest in foreign policy.




2. Professor Tanter identifies the rogue gallery during the cold war as containing Stalin, Brezhnev and Mao. With the end of the cold war, America faces different threats. No longer do Americans worry daily about global nuclear war, nevertheless risks, including terrorism, remain. The chapter on Cuba has a marvelous discussion on the interplay between domestic and foreign policy and outlines a variety of policy options available to Washington. The author says that policy makers must analyze the interplay between threat perception, domestic politics and national security. Given the various concerns, Tanter says the option of continuing economic sanctions makes sense if a national security threat reamins, but the policy is less legitimate if domestic politics are the chief motivating force. The discussion includes the cases of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, North Korea as well as Cuba. The reader comes away with a sense of the difficulties that will face any administration in Washington.



3. The United States faces new and complex foreign policy challenges from non-traditional sources since the demise of the Soviet Union. It is clear that these challenges will come from smaller, more militant, idealistic countries and leaders trying to acquire and improve weapons of mass destruction. Terrorism will clearly become the weapon of choice for these actors in the 21st Century. Dr. Tanter has laid out the threat that many of the world's "rougue" nations and leaders pose to U.S. national security. More importantly he has suggested courses of action for policy makers and implementors to take. It is clear that the U.S. needs to update policy on many nations and organizations. His strong, no-nonsense approach to national security and international relations will not be well received among the "cookies and milk" crowd, but the long-term security of the U.S. depends on the ability American policy-makers to rise to the challenges that face them and make the tough decisions to protect American interests. Tanter's Rouge Regimes should be on their short list of references.



4. Tanter's ROGUE REGIMES captures the essence of the dilemma posed by the demise of the Cold War. Absent a Soviet Union, how does the United States deal with lesser threats to its security without damaging its standing as a member of the international community? Tanter's book provides valuable insight into the nature of these regimes, which is a must for any approach that accounts for the often irrational nature of these regimes.



5. Tanter's book has almost no objectivity with regards to concepts of rogue states and regimes. The point of view taken is merely that of the United States (itself perhaps the biggest "rogue state" in the world today). In fact, Tanter has no problem with the fact that his book is merely an extension of US foreign policy. For example, after he states that Cuba has no large army, no weapons of mass destruction, nor has it engaged in terrorist acts, he still calls Cuba a rogue regime "because of historical tensions, Washington considers Castro a rogue leader--thus Cuba itself is an outlaw regime." (x) Lybia is consider a called a "rejectionist"[?] state because it does not accept the American-led peace process with Israel. It is clear now that the American-led peace process was never really to benefit the Palestinains in any way, but Tanter conveninetly overlooks these kinds of facts. Moral of the story: Go with Chomsky's book on Rogue Nations and skip this extension of Kissinger-type foreign policy.

2 comments about Growing Up Palestinian: Israeli Occupation and the Intifada Generation (Princeton Studies in Muslim Politics).

1. Well, let's start with what is wrong with this book. First of all, it begins with a false assumption, namely that Israel's problem is Greed. With a capital G. Yes, that must be it. After all, the Israelis (well, a few of them, anyway) want a vast Empire of over 10,000 square miles! The author fails to detect the fact that there are over 5 million Jews in Israel. And even more in the Jewish Diaspora. That means that Israel can indeed be both a democracy and have a solid Jewish majority, just as Hungary can have a Hungarian majority and the Netherlands can have a Dutch majority. In short, she fails to notice that Israelis are trying for maybe a quarter or less of what they would have if the world were color-blind, let people buy land, and acknowledged property rights. And she fails to notice that the Arabs, with millions of square miles, are just a teensy bit on the greedy side in this respect.
   
   Next, she seems to imply that the Arabs who are fighting Israel have a positive cause, maybe freedom and human rights. But if they truly had that as a cause, this war would have been over long ago. The cause has been, for a century or so, anything but freedom and human rights for Arabs. It has been the denial of freedom and human rights to the Jews.
   
   Bucaille does say that both sides want victory. But she does not exactly explain what a victory might mean. Suppose the Israelis did win? Suppose they got the Big Apology from the Arabs for all the slanders, lies, and aggression? Suppose they got the Arabs to give up all the incitement, aggression and slander. Suppose they got the Arabs to live in peace with them. That's the Big Victory. Would that be so awful for the Arabs?
   
   On the other hand, what if the Arabs get the Big Victory? Suppose they do get all the Jews in Asia to leave for other continents. There will be plenty of Jewish survivors. They'll probably put their lives back together eventually. Meanwhile, the Arabs will be left with nothing to show for their big crime. Israel is small. It has few natural resources. The only thing of much value is its people. But all the Jews will leave, and many Arabs may do so as well. Worse, the Arabs may then try more military adventures. And just as Germany eventually lost World War Two, the Arabs will lose if they keep fighting their neighbors. Would this be good for anyone?
   
   The book does have some interesting things to say about Gaza. It's just that it is permeated with anti-Israeli propaganda.
   
   Well, what does the author conclude? She says that real reconciliation between the Arabs and Jews is necessary, unavoidable, and the only rational outcome. That is an exaggeration, of course. But only a mild one. I would say real reconciliation is desirable, likely, and reasonable. But the problem is that Bucaille does not take her own advice. She never dreams of a solution in which there is actually Truth and Reconciliation. Or equal Rights for Jews and Arabs to buy land throughout the Middle East (which might mean that Jews could finally buy land just over the border in Petra and Arabs could buy land in Beersheba). She does not talk about Jews being allowed to live in Arab lands. She does not talk about Jews living in Arab nations but voting in Israel or Arabs living in Israel but voting in Arab nations. She does not talk of having loyalty be a requirement for residents who wish to be citizens with voting rights.
   
   I do not recommend this book.



2. First off, there is no anti-Israeli propaganda in this book. Instead, it does an incredible job of detailing the complixities of the situation. One of these is that many of the Palestinian militants that the author interviews do not hate Jews and want them expelled from the land; they want an end to the Israeli occupation. In a conflict, it is important to know both sides; by profiling the lives of young Palestinian militants, this book gives insights into aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rarely seen in mass media, without condemning either side. My only complaint is that the translation is slightly strained at times, but I highly recommend this book.

No comments about How the Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Conflict (Cambridge Studies in International Relations).

No comments about FACING TERRORISM.

5 comments about A State of Disobedience.

1. A State of Disobedience (2003) is a standalone near future SF novel. The USA had become steadily more polarized between the two national parties until a balance of sorts was reached. Yet this equilibrium was very unstable, threatening to collapse at any time. Then a Democratic Presidential candidate won the election.
   
   In this novel, Wilhelmina Rottemeyer, President-Elect of the United States of America, glories in the Democratic control of the White House and Congress. Now the rich individuals and corporations will be taxed to the limit to provide for the poor. Medical care, education and most other services will be taken away from state control and provided to all through the federal government. Federal police forces will be greatly expanded and charged with the elimination of organized and disorganized crime.
   
   Juanita Montoya-Serasin de Seguin is the Democratic governor of the state of Texas. Although in the same party as Willy Rottemeyer, Juanita is rather more conservative than the President. As the mother of four strong boys, she had been elected, at least partly, on her image of maternal warmth.
   
   John Lewis Schmidt is a Major General in the Texas National Guard. As Adjutant-General, he is the commander of all Army National Guard units within the state. His commander is the state governor, Juanita Seguin.
   
   Father Jorge Montoya is priest of the Dei Gloria Mission in Waco, Texas. He is also the older brother of the governor of Texas and a very close friend of Jack Schmidt. During the Vietnam War, Sergeant Montoya had saved the life of Lieutenant Schmidt.
   
   When an anti-abortion group torches a clinic in Dallas, federal agents assault the main offices of Catholics for Children and kill the staff. Father Flores witnesses the attack on his organization and flees to the Dei Gloria Mission. He is not very welcome these, but Father Jorge cannot send him back to the federal killers.
   
   When the shooting starts at Father Jorge's Mission, all the dead are federal agents, shot by young Elpida and Julio after the SAC starts to draw his sidearm. Unfortunately, one special agent gets away and the mission is soon surrounded with federal police and armored vehicles. Happily, the US Army is sitting this one out, but FBI, BATF and even the Surgeon General's Police are waiting to assault the facility. The Hostage Rescue Team has snipers ready to take out any armed perps.
   
   In this story, Jack Schmidt sends a National Guard helicopter with a double load of arms and ammunition into the mission courtyard. The HRT snipers shoot several of Father Jorge's older kids. Finally, Army attack choppers blanket the compound with rockets and gatling gun rounds.
   
   The Feds kill everybody in the mission except for Elpida, the mother of Pedro. The death toll includes twenty-five young children and the baby Pedro. These children all burn to death in the fire set by incendiary rockets, so their funeral is closed casket.
   
   The state of Texas secedes from the Union. This time, the secession is fully covered on the internet. The funeral is witnessed by everyone in the world who cares to watch. So are the actions of the Texas State Legislature as they vote to secede.
   
   This story follows the military and political maneuvering of both the USA and Texas. For the most part, the US Army sits out the initial assaults, but soon become involved after Texas forces secure the Western Currency Facility in Dallas. Many of the US forces are federal police units, including most of those who had been at the Dei Gloria Mission.
   
   The story reads much like a prequel to Piper and McGuire's A Planet for Texans. Yet the state of Texas does not migrate to another planet in this tale. Texas has one of the biggest space industries in the world, but this story takes place in the near future and thus does not include interstellar flight. Still, the internal dissension is strong enough in Texas to send most of the population offplanet if only sufficient spaceflight capabilities were available. Maybe future political disputes will provide another opportunity.
   
   What Texas does have in this timeframe is military bases and personnel (both active duty and retired). Since the US military is offended by the political posturing and ploys of the Liberal wing of the Democratic party, several military decisions are weighted in favor of the Texans. When Third Corps withdraws from Fort Hood, they leave behind tons of ammunition and equipment that should have been transported out or destroyed. Eventually, the party hacks in Washington totally alienate the US military, including the newly selected Chairperson of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
   
   Highly recommended for Kratman fans and for anyone else who enjoys tales of political stratagems, military strategy and personal relationships.
   
   -Arthur W. Jordin



2. This book is so stereo typed and over the top, that the only thing it could be considered is political satire. It is so poorly written that I have removed anything else written by Kratman from my wish list. Especially after previewing his next book at Baen's web site. He is so far right wing in these books, that he is beyond the fringe.
   I have no problem with the sci fi concept of suspending disbelief, bu he goes too far to be credibly considered a Sci Fi writer.
   I've been an avid Sci Fi reader since the late 50's, and have a book collection that is beyond 5000 titles that I have kept thru 4 moves. This is the first title I intend to not keep. He is an embarrassment to Heinlein, Leinster, Reynolds and Norton. He even makes the Gor novels, especially the later books seem almost mainstream.



3. It's for sale right here on this site, and it contains the only interesting elements of this "novel". This is political screed...read the prologue, if you can continue, then you get what you deserve.



4. This is NOT a hardcore science fiction book.
   
   Let's get that out of the way right off the bat.
   
   In 'Empire', Orson Scott Card (who, by the way, is a self-professed member of the Democratic Party) wrote a novel about a Second American Civil War that has MUCH more science fiction in it than 'A State of Disobedience'. Having said that, these two books have something very much in common.
   
   In both books, the authors postulate what might be enough to bring about a 'Second American Civil War.' Kratman uses political figures that are easily seen in today's politics to bring about 'change' in the American Federal Government. He uses them in plausible ways as well, with the new American President attempting to consolidate her power and form an effective police state.
   
   The only problem I have with this book is, quite simply, that I cannot see that Texas would be the only state to rebel. (Okay, eventually New Mexico joins in as well, but still...) In this, Kratman misses the heartland of the country. I think there would have been more Americans flocking to take the side of Texas in this conflict than he realizes.
   
   Also like Card, Kratman is being criticized in these reviews for being assumptive that the liberal point of view would be bad for the country in the long run. What has been missed by these reviewers is that Card IS a liberal who feels that now (and has stated that publicly) - and Kratman is like John Ringo in being correct in that respect.
   
   Two different books by two different authors with different political backgrounds on effectively the same subject - and they both reach the same conclusion. Maybe there is something to think about here.
   
   (Oh, and I was fired up and ready to run to the border to help Texas as well - I'd like to think that my relatives in Oklahoma would also join in as well.)



5. My, my, my but we have a bunch of self righteous, judgmental "critics" here.
   
   I don't know if Kratman intended to create a camp classic, but IMO he managed just that. I LOVE the book precisely because it IS so bad. That Hillary would be a power happy Lesbian is so predictable I can't imagine anyone not foreseeing it. The stereotypes are set in stone, the the dialogs are horrid (and, as always) predictable, etc, etc, etc. And, of course, in the end "justice" is served.
   
   BUT, the book, like the 1950's Sc Fi classic movies is so bad it's wonderful. I've purchased and given away at least five copies to those who I knew would "understand."
   
   The lesson, I suppose, is that individuals have very different perceptions. Some are more willing to be contemptuous and judgmental that others.
   
   Personally, I find it rather incredible that someone would revile Kratman, then recommend John Ringo with his trashy his pseudo intellectual pornography.

1 comments about Terrorism As Crime: From Oklahoma City to Al-Qaeda and Beyond (Alternative Criminology).

1. The author's declared goal of this book is to examine terrorist's involvement in certain kinds of crimes and describe law enforcement's opportunities to detect and prevent them. I found this expectation satisfied. After a very good introductory chapter (available on line)the author essentially presents a series of case histories of domestic and foreign terrorist groups and individuals. These do serve to illustrate the author's points and make the book a worthwhile addition to the current literature on terrorism.
   
   In the introductory chapter the author emphasises the usefulness of "routine activity perspective" and "social learning theory" in analysing criminal activity. These criminolgical approaches were new to me, and I would have appreciated more discussion of them and more explicit connections between these approaches and the case studies.