5 comments about War on Terror: Unfolding Bible Prophecy.

1. I found this book to be VERY interesting. I learned a LOT about Bible prophecy and feel that most any christian would as well. I don't think this book is for those who are anti-christian unless they are wanting to learn more about the Bible and christianity.



2. Like other authors of "End Times" claims, Jeffrey doesn't understand the true meaning of real prophecy, prefering to buy into the idea that a God of Wrath will destroy the world, along with all the sinners and heathen and pagans ... and, of course, deliver all the "saved and born-again Christians" to heaven. Fortunately, there are good books available that tell the truth, such as Real Prophecy Unveiled, by Joseph J. Adamson, and The Isaiah Effect, by Greg Braden. They are worth reading, while Jeffrey's book is merely right-wing [opinions] in the guise of "God's Word."



3. A very useful account of what is really going on behind the headlines in relation to the ongoing `Middle East conflict' and the `War Against Terrorism'.

   Current events are explained and investigated in the light of Biblical prophecy and present a host of facts not seen on CNN, Fox News, Sky and the BBC.

   The future scenarios of both the aforementioned conflicts are explored in relation to Scripture and how they might affect us all.

   All in all, a thoroughly good read and a useful addition to anyone's library. We really owe it to ourselves to be aware of the circumstances and context of these events. The importance of which cannot be over emphasised.

   Books such as this show clearly that much of the Western media reports relating to the Israel-Palestinian conflict in line with their own world view. The media, in those instances, unfortunately betraying its purpose and, instead of objective reporting, attempts to create a frame of reference that portrays Israel as the aggressor and the Palestinians as the `innocent' victims.

   Hence the media shapes and distorts public opinion and influences it away from the true realities, creating news rather than reporting it.

   It is essential that through books such as this we can get at the real facts behind the crucial issues and not be swayed by propaganda and sensationalism.

   The possible consequences of a major escalation in these conflicts is frightening. We cannot allow ourselves to bury our heads in the sand. We really need to know the true agendas of the nations in the region, their allegiances and real position relative to the West.

   I would also recommend `Unholy War; America, Israel & Radical Islam' by Randall Price,
   `The Last War; The Failure Of The Peace Process & The Coming Battle For Jerusalem' by David Allen Lewis and
   `The Continuing Storm; Iraq, Poisonous Weapons and Deterrence' by Avigdor Haselkorn.




4. I have followed Grant Jeffrey's books and television programs in my research of current trends in Evangelical eschatology. Jeffrey is among the least credible, due to his tacky research and use of dubious "proofs" for his claims. This book is vexing for several reasons. Grant Jeffery NEVER mentioned the Middle East or Islam in his previous works, if only in passing. Now after September 11, he is an expert on Islam and Arabic history! As an example of his expertise, he claims in this book that the Taliban are one of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel! The Taliban are a theocratic movement in Afghanistan, not an ethnicity!

   He then goes on to offer advise on how the U.S. should conduct its foreign policy and maintain national security, which is in actuality just a rehash of the Bush administration's current policy. It is evident to me that Mr. Jeffrey is simply seeking attention, or worse, out to make a profit out of our nation's greatest tragedy.

   If you want to read a book by someone who has done his homework, read Hal Lindsey's THE EVERLASTING HATRED: THE ROOTS OF JIHAD (highly informative; not as polemical as it sounds). Or better yet, pick up a book by someone who has lived under Islamist terror for years: former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's FIGHTING TERRORISM: HOW DEMOCRACIES CAN DEFEAT DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISTS.

   I advise everyone to stay away from Grant Jeffrey's books. Not recommended.




5. I picked this up after reading a frightening novel based on biblical prophecy and the war on terror, "Conquest of Paradise" by Britt Gillette. That book made the Second Coming seem inevitable! Grant Jeffrey's latest book provides a very useful account of what is really going on behind the headlines in relation to the ongoing `Middle East conflict' and the `War Against Terrorism'. Current events are explained and investigated in the light of Biblical prophecy and present a host of facts not seen on CNN, Fox News, Sky and the BBC. The future scenarios of both the aforementioned conflicts are explored in relation to Scripture and how they might affect us all. All in all, a thoroughly good read and a useful addition to anyone's library. We really owe it to ourselves to be aware of the circumstances and context of these events. The importance of which cannot be over emphasized. Books such as this show clearly that much of the Western media reports relating to the Israel-Palestinian conflict in line with their own worldview. The media, in those instances, unfortunately betraying its purpose and, instead of objective reporting, attempts to create a frame of reference that portrays Israel as the aggressor and the Palestinians as the `innocent' victims. Hence the media shapes and distorts public opinion and influences it away from the true realities, creating news rather than reporting it. It is essential that through books such as this we can get at the real facts behind the crucial issues and not be swayed by propaganda and sensationalism. The possible consequences of a major escalation in these conflicts is frightening. We cannot allow ourselves to bury our heads in the sand.

5 comments about Future: Tense: The Coming World Order?.

1. A longtime expert in military and international affairs sketches a plausible and unhappy prognosis for international relations in the 21st century.
   
   As a Canadian, I was in the minority among people I knew in supporting the U.S. invasion of Iraq. I was influenced by reading "The Economist", which endorsed the invasion on the grounds that Saddam had flouted numerous UN resolutions and had attacked three or four neighboring countries, and by reading Khidhir Hamza's "Saddam's Bombmaker", an account of Iraq's nuclear-weapons program by the man responsible for running it. I fully expected the invaders to find "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq.
   
   None has been. Nor was there ever any plausible connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Those of us who thought the invasion made sense have been made to look increasingly foolish. Our only excuse is ignorance--but what is the excuse of the U.S. and British administrations, whose military intelligence must surely have been better than mine?
   
   Gwynne Dyer, Canadian-born soldier and military analyst, explains why, in his view, the U.S. is in Iraq, and more importantly, what the implications of that invasion are for the future of global peace and security. His previous book, "Ignorant Armies", was a clear, brief account of how the Iraq war unfolded, but left me unsatisfied as to its true motivation. Here Dyer addresses that question, and has pretty much succeeded in persuading me that he has found the answer.
   
   I never bought the "oil" argument, much less the "revenge on behalf of dad" argument--and neither does Dyer. But in some ways I found Dyer's argument even harder to swallow: that the U.S. invaded as a pure expression of readiness to use military power to subdue those who defy it, to send a signal to national governments that the world is now effectively under a Pax Americana, enforced by the military might of its sole surviving superpower. The days of multilateralism and international law, mediated through the United Nations, are over. There's a new sheriff in town, and you'd better not get him riled.
   
   Dyer, with his knowledge of military history and his background in exploring the causes of the world wars (he created highly respected radio and TV documentary series on these in Canada), makes the case that the invasion of Iraq is not simply one more illegal military action in a long series that the UN has been unable to prevent, but a decisive moment of paradigm-shift in international relations. He spends time explaining how the rise of multilateralism, through its agencies the League of Nations and later the UN, in response to the unprecedented horrors of World Wars 1 and 2, was a unique and precious advance by humanity in reining in nations' militarism in the face of progress in the technology of killing. After World War 2, world leaders understood clearly that a nuclear-armed World War 3 must be avoided at almost any cost. Therefore even the mighty U.S. submitted to multilateral checks and balances and the authority of international law, however imperfect.
   
   According to Dyer, with the invasion of Iraq--a project hatched and planned by American "neoconservative" ideologues in the 1990s--the U.S. administration is seeking to push the UN and international law into irrelevance, and take over the roles of world cop, judge, and jury. In Dyer's view, the failure of this project is inevitable, as indeed is the U.S.'s defeat in Iraq, where it will be beaten as it was in Vietnam and as the USSR was in Afghanistan--and for the same reasons: no invading occupying army has ever beaten a homegrown guerrilla force on its own soil.
   
   But in the meantime, irreparable harm can and will be done to the international multilateral order. Countries, frightened of the "new sheriff" who no longer acknowledges the authority of the UN, will band together in bilateral alliances--exactly as they did in the years before World War 1 and , after the demise of the League of Nations, World War 2. Dyer has long held that these systems of bilateral alliances were the direct cause of the world wars. With a new system of bilateral alliances in place, the tinder for World War 3 will be set. And of course, the technology for killing has advanced tremendously since 1945--advanced and also spread.
   
   The book's authority is eroded a bit by the lack of footnotes, index, and bibliography. We must rely on Dyer's personal authority, which, to be sure, is considerable. Also, no doubt due to the dark tone of his prognosis, Dyer's characteristic low-key wit and irreverence are less in evidence here than they are in his personal interviews and columns.
   
   But if you're looking for a brief, penetrating, authoritative look at the global implications of the current U.S. occupation of Iraq, written from outside the Punch-and-Judy arena of American domestic political debate, this is your book.



2. I've been a big fan of Mr. Dyer since his documentary days on CBC, so this book is pretty self-recommending. The only question is, why did it take me so long to get around to it? Perhaps it has something to do with no American publisher having the brains, or the guts, to bring it out over here?
   
   At this point there's nothing I can add to the reviews below about why you should read this book, so let me enter a few caveats.
   
   I was most struck by Mr. Dyer's bizarre handling of the whole "9/11 conspiracy" issue, or rather his rather revealing non-handling. Dyer believes that "neo-conservatives in the administration deliberately and consciously hijack[ed] the national panic over the 9/11 attacks in order to impose their own quire different agenda on US foreign policy, starting with the invasion of Iraq." [p. 169] He then sees that he has to distance himself from two more radical views, that "the neo-conservatives who dominated the Bush administration ...must have either (a) planned it or (b) deliberately ignored prior knowledge about it." [ibid].
   
   These are what others have called MIHOP (make it happen on purpose) and LIHOP (let it happen on purpose). Mr. Dyer's entire response to MIHOP is: Muslims believe it, so it must be false, and it is "frequently buttressed by the outright lie...that Jews working in the Twin Towers were warned not to go to work" [and therefore, must be some kind of anti-Semitic slur]. That's it, quite literally: two, completely irrelevant sentences! Read it yourself: last paragraph of page 169.
   
   LIHOP is then dealt with for two page, 170-71, and initially dismissed as "a myth [like] the conspiracy theories about the Kennedy assassination," by which I assume he does not mean, "will eventually be endorsed by the Congressional committee investigating it decades from now," as the "Kennedy conspiracy" was. After some more blather, his argument is given, again in two sentences, on page 171: the odds are "approximately zero" that a conspiracy so vast could keep quiet, and the odds that any senior office would risk the death penalty for treason are "absolutely zero." Case closed.
   
   Mr. Dyer is so concerned to prevent any association with these kooks that he even turns his back on his Canadian heritage, and endorses the death penalty! Apparently, the threat of a death sentence makes the risk of a crime being committed "absolutely zero"! And what a ringing endorsement of our American government officials, no one of whom could possibly commit treason!
   
   Mr. Dyer's case is so weak that even he can't keep it up: on page 213, he blithely asserts that "the United States went to the trouble of manufacturing a fake North Vietnamese naval attack on U.S. ships in the Gulf of Tonkin before starting the bombing of North Vietnam." Well, I guess that one did get out, but where are the treason trials? After all, this fake attack resulted in far more American deaths than 9/11 and Iraq combined.
   
   This is not the place to argue the case for either MIHOP or LIHOP, so I would refer you to any number of books with a rather more nuanced idea of how things happen in the world of moles, patsies, dupes, such as Webster Tarpley's 9/11 Synthetic Terror or David Griffin's Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11, which does an especially good job exploding the myths that government conspiracies don`t exist, or not in America, or at least not against our own people.
   .
   One thing you will notice, however, is that both books are just filled with references and notes, like most books on 9/11. Mr. Dyer, however, has given us a book with no notes, no index and no bibliography. Apparently we are to just take everything on his say-so. Ask yourself, which kind of book is more likely to be myth, and which scholarship?
   
   The whole thing is so shoddily done, that one can only assume that Mr. Dyer is simply trying to keep on the good side of the establishment. Perhaps he is worried about what happens to those who let on in public what they know?
   
   Again, Mr. Dyer is eager to maintain his establishment credentials by distinguishing the "good" intervention in Bosnia from the "bad" intervention in Iraq. So he presents the myth of Milosevic, the "vicious sponsor of ethnic cleansing and mass murder," [p. 225] although in the next paragraph he is already backtracking, where Milosevic give only "tacit approval" (eliminating that pesky need to actually prove evidence of intent). Unfortunately, Mr. Dyer's record of lying about Bosnia is preserved on the web for all to see: http://www.antiwar.com/malic/m051503.html
   
   On page 153, Mr. Dyer, after appropriating material, in that non-footnoting way of his, from Rise of the Vulcans, perpetuates the myth that the Vulcans pressed Cheney on Bush. Actually, Mr. Cheney nominated himself, unaided, as documented by John Nicols essential book, Dick.
   
   Finally, Mr. Dyer likes to cozy up to America, or at least hedge his bets for the future, by making a show of acknowledging that America, after all, did "invent" democracy [p. 151 and elsewhere]. The idea that America was, or was even intended to be, a democracy is an absurd and outdated myth needs to be put to rest, perhaps by a reading of Daniel Lazare's Velvet Revolution, which though dealing with the Bush Coup, gives along the way a concise version of his earlier book, The Frozen Republic.
   
   Despite these flaws, Mr. Dyer's book is probably the best one out there for getting an understanding of the mess we're in today, and where we're likely to go (hint: it's not pretty).



3. I have always been a fan of Dyer's columns in our newspaper that we get on the weekend (our little town doesn't even carry decent columnists, so we have to get our "real" news from a bigger newspaper from a bigger town an hour away from us). I have been reading Dyer since I was a young girl. My dad and husband are fans of his writings too. In fact, my dad lent us this book and throughout this entire book, I kept telling my husband that he really really needs to read this.
   
   Just recently, Bush announces his intentions in keeping a military base in Iraq. Dyer mentioned this in this book written three years ago. Just recently, there are a series of actions and speeches that was "predicted" in this book three years ago. It is eerie to read something that resonates in today's series of events and realize that Dyer had foreseen some of this years ago. I am not making Dyer out to be a prophet or anything like that ~~ but he seems to be the most clear-sighted journalist out there right now (especially more so since Molly Ivins have passed on). When I read this book, there was a lot of "a ha!" moments that I very rarely get while reading about current affairs. Usually, I end up feeling more confused than I did when I first read a book. Not this time.
   
   Dyer explains a lot in this little book that is just chock-full of information, quotes, instances and ideologies. First, he explains what Islamist is and how similar it is to the Fundamentalists in Christianity ~~ except Muslims don't have the same word for Fundamentalists that we have in our language. He then explains the Islamist viewpoint (which most Muslims do not share). He explains bin Laden's goals. He explains the neo-conservatives' goals. He goes over the history of the world in the last 60 years. He explains briefly the history of civilization of the last 6,000+ years and how it changed the course of the world.
   
   Like a lot of the reviewers, I had a hard time buying the neoconservatives' explanations for attacking Iraq. I thought at first maybe it was for the oil, but it just didn't jive with everything else. I knew it wasn't going after Saddam because of "what he said about my daddy" ~~ it was too juvenile. (Then again, anything can go nowadays, I guess.) When Dyer explains the Reagan administration, the first Bush administration and the current administration ~~ it all started to make sense. Combine that with the history of the previous world wars and the United Nations formation ~~ it is all starting to make sense.
   
   I am not sure why this book isn't touted more in the public view. Dyer isn't writing like a madman spouting off things ~~ in fact, his book is very reasonable. He writes with precision and with a world view that not necessarily is anti-American, but just with a much different perspective and a much clearer foresight than we Americans are getting from our own media and government. I didn't get the impression that the world thinks we're dumb Americans ~~ there is just a perplexed viewpoint of why we're heading down this path and why the rest of us aren't seeing it. It's also a dangerous path we're on and finally, after four years, other people are starting to raise the alarm.
   
   Just don't forget, Dyer was one of the first ones to sound the alarm when he wrote this book.
   
   6-10-07



4. Weak states prefer international accords because they constrain the actions of powerful states. Powerful states dislike them for the same reason. This has been true at least since the emergence of nation-states in the 14th century.
   
   Dyer professes surprise and disappointment that the United States is acting almost unilaterally in Iraq, scorning and disregarding the United Nations in the process.
   
   The only real surprise is that the United States doesn't go its own way more often. In fact, what's even more surprising is the key historical role the US played in founding the UN in the first place. The peace and stability the UN has enabled, and the prosperity that's followed in its wake, have certainly been good for the United States; but you'd be hard-pressed to find examples of other powerful states in history with enough vision to trade off some of their own short-term ability to act in favor of long-term stability. Dyer, moreover, would probably endorse the idea that the US role in the creation of the UN was far-sighted and visionary.
   
   When a great power feels its interests threatened, it will respond as it sees fit. The UN Charter explicitly recognizes this by giving the permanent members of the Security Council - the great powers of their day - veto rights. You can argue as Dyer does that the veto doesn't extend to unsanctioned attacks on other states, but you're fooling yourself if you think the great powers will pay any more than lip service to UN principles when they perceive their core interests at risk.
   
   Dyer's premise is that the United States is not the "indispensable nation," nor a "beacon on the hill," and is no longer the powerhouse of the world economy. Indeed, he postulates, the US has reached its zenith and is on its way down, and needs help finding a soft landing. The United States, in other words, is no longer - or will not remain for much longer - a great power.
   
   If you accept that starting point, the rest of his argument is neither controversial nor particularly interesting. Middle powers can't play by great power rules; and the sooner they wake up to their changed status, the less havoc they wreck on the way down. Think Britain after WWII.
   
   If Dyer's premise is wrong, though, the rest of his arguments disintegrate into typical weak-state hand-wringing about the lawless and self-interested great powers. This, too, is neither controversial nor interesting.
   
   Viewed from this perspective, the absence of support for Dyer's premise about the decline of the United States is puzzling and disappointing. About the only hard evidence he presents is the fact that the US share of the global economy has fallen from 45% after WWII to 20% today. Most historians believe that the 45% figure was an anomaly that reflected the destruction of much of Europe's industrial base, and that the shrinkage of that share back down to 20% is much more in line with historical averages stretching back to the beginning of the 20th century.
   
   Most serious observers, moreover, don't base their analysis of the rise and fall of great powers solely on relative economic size. You have to consider military capability, both quantitative (how many guns) and qualitative (how effective are they); cultural influence; moral example; ability to innovate; advances in science, engineering and technology; the list goes on. Now, one can have a robust debate about what the 21st century holds for the United States measured against any or all of those axes - but Dyer isn't interested in any of that, instead treating this as axiomatic and confining his statements in this area to a few sentences here and there.
   
   He does say in a couple of places that countries like Russia, India and China are finding "their own rough way" to democracy and need neither assistance nor a working example from the United States. Really? Does Dyer honestly think that the whole history of the Cold War, culminating in the collapse of the Soviet Union, has had no effect on the evolution of democracy in India and Russia? Did the United States play no role in Tiananmen Square? Have Bill Clinton's comments about the Chinese Communists being on the "wrong side of history" had no effect on the evolution of politics in China? One can again imagine a robust debate on these topics - but you won't get it from Dyer.
   
   Astonishingly, Dyer's depiction of the US role in the creation of the United Nations belies his core premise that the US is not the "indispensable nation." He points out that the creation of the UN was far-sighted and visionary, and that the American leaders of the day were patient and thoughtful people who knew a global conflict with the Soviets was coming but were willing to fight it by setting in place the whole post-war edifice of economic stability and military alliance. Dispensable? Ask yourself what great power in history would have perceived its interests in such depth and as being so intertwined with the rest of humanity, or gone to such subtle lengths to contain and discredit an enemy rather than just attacking it. Britain? Spain? The Ottomans? The Romans?
   
   Even Dyer's recounting of the events that led up to the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent guerrilla insurgency comes across as poorly-researched and naive. More thorough, interesting (and damning) works abound, including Assassin's Gate, Fiasco, and Imperial Life in the Emerald City - all written, it's worth noting in passing, by Americans.
   
   For a much more insightful account of why the US "really" invaded Iraq, and what's really going on with the violence there, have a look at America's Secret War by George Friedman. The founder of Strategic Forecasting argues - convincingly, with a fair amount of evidence - that the REAL point of invading Iraq was to pressure the Saudis to halt their own domestic financial support for Al Qaeda. The Sunni insurgency was planned and put in place by Saddam Hussein well before the invasion, and the Shia uprisings are orchestrated and directed in detail by Iran whenever it feels the US is trying to renege on deals made regarding the future government of Iraq. All very cold-blooded - and all very believable behavior from a great power concerned, correctly or not, about its survival.
   
   You'll come away from Secret War, and the other books mentioned above, with a much clearer sense of how the United States perceives the world post-9/11, what it's doing about it, and how it's succeeding - and failing. You'll also be much better equipped to condemn or criticize the US, and perhaps even more inclined to do so after you understand the real failures and self-deceptions the United States has encountered in the past six years.



5. Gwynne Dyer used to be a Senior Lecturer at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst. In this fascinating book, he warns that the biggest threat to world peace is the US state's current project of worldwide intervention.
   
   He argues that this project is about asserting that the USA rules, without reference to international law, relying on force in international affairs. This ruthless strategy promises security, but produces only endless wars. The Iraq war was a demonstration of the project; it was not about Iraq or terrorism.
   
   In the project, religion plays its usual reactionary role - US tele-evangelist Jim Robison opened a Republican National Convention by saying, "There will be no peace until Jesus comes. Any preaching of peace prior to this return is heresy. It is against the word of God. It is anti-Christ." This is a mirror-image of bin Laden's rhetoric.
   
   Dyer writes that the Iraq war is lost. He points out, "In anti-colonial guerrilla wars, the locals always win." The Indonesians beat the Dutch, the Vietnamese and Algerians beat the French, the Kenyans and Cypriots beat the British, the Angolans and Mozambicans beat the Portuguese, and the Iraqis will beat the Americans.
   
   He notes that mad Wolfowitz said, with no sense of irony, "I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq." (In his world, foreigners are always non-Americans.)
   
   Dyer also explores the parallel Islamist project. Bin Laden aimed to provoke Bush into invading Muslim nations, and Bush played right into his hands. But Al Qaeda is not a threat like Nazi Germany. As Dyer writes, its threat `has been deliberately and grotesquely exaggerated' because it is needed as cover for the US project.
   
   But both projects are going badly wrong, and both are doomed to fail. Yet the British ruling class has swayed the EU into backing the US project, threatening our liberty and security.

1 comments about Masters of Terror: Indonesia's Military and Violence in East Timor (World Social Change).

1. Few American readers will be familiar with East Timor. But for 30 years, since Indonesia's invasion and occupation of it in 1975, it has been a constant sore point, both for Indonesia itself and for relations between Indonesia and Australia. The book recaps significant human rights violations (massacres) commited by Indonesian forces against the Timorese. It also includes accounts of the Indonesian military supplying local Timorese factions with weapons and other support. These factions then attacked other Timorese groups on numerous occasions.
   
   Several high ranking Indonesian officers are named, as culpable in instigating bloodshed. The book is an attempt to bear witness against them. Alas, the prospects of these officers being indicted are unlikely. Even under the new Indonesian democracy, the military posseses considerable autonomy from civilian oversight.
   
   The book also shows why in Australia there has been a persistent suspicion of Indonesia's actions. A feeling that perhaps one day Australia's northern regions might fall under Indonesian incursions. The actions of Indonesia's military towards East Timor do not induce good feelings in the region.

No comments about Your Government Failed You CD: Breaking the Cycle of National Security Disasters.

No comments about An Introduction to Intelligence Research and Analysis.

No comments about Terrorism: The Newest Face of Warfare (Pergamon-Brassey's Terrorism Library, 1).

1 comments about Peasants In Arms: War & Peace in the Mountains of Nicaragua, 1979-1994 (Ohio RIS Latin America Series).

1. The book is an overall excellent study of the contradictions of Nicaraguan peasant life (no pun intended) and how they did not guarantee automatic acceptance by the rural poor for Sandinista redistributive programs.
   
   The title of this review comes from the missing pages in the middle of the text, specifically pages 131-162. I don't know if this is just the fault of the copy I purchased, or is endemic in all paperback editions of this book; however, it was definitely bound this way - the pages did not fall out - and the gap comes at a crucial point of the author's case. Prospective buyers should check with the seller before ordering this book, if such a gap is of concern to you. (It is to me, but I'm not paying out $25 more for another copy for a screwup that may well be the publisher's fault.)

No comments about Earth Federation Now: Tomorrow is Too Late.

No comments about Advances in Biological and Chemical Terrorism Countermeasures.

5 comments about Out of the Blue: A Narrative of September 11, 2001.

1. This is the story of the attack on our country on 9/11/01. The story goes all the way back to the late 1980's and originates in Afghanistan. Berstein does a good job of describing how bin Laden and his group of thugs got their grounding in the basics of terrorism. Not only bin Laden but some of the other members (Atta) are described in their early life.
   Along with the story of the terrorists, there are stories of some of the victims of 09/11/01. Bernstein does a good job in describing their lives, so we know what America lost in this attack. Unlike other journalists, Berstein gives reasons why the FBI/CIA did not pick up on the attack.
   This is a good summary of the attacks and the reasons they originated. The title sums up the surprise Americans felt when the attack came.



2. The beginning of this book is very difficult to stomach. Although it has been almost two years since this horrific event, it still seems like yesterday to me. Right from page one, the author begins to talk about the people who jumped from the Twin Towers. He continues talking about this for a few pages. For me, seeing people jump is the one very vivid image that still haunts me. He goes into very graphic detail about the jumpers. About how one man was impaled on a street sign. Reading this book was like reliving Sept 11 all over again. If you're not ready to relive the experience, please do not read this book. The rest of the book gives a short bio on some of the terrorists and some of the innocent people who were killed on 9/11. The book also documents the growing hatred of Amercia and how the terrorists came to be. It was surprising to note just how much the FBI knew but how little they actually did.



3. This is,without doubt,the best book I've come across about that dastardly act committed on 9/11.We have all watched many hours of televised newscasts and specials covering this event;but what this book does is put human faces on the people who were involved.
   The perpetrators of this act were filled with hatred and represent the many thousands of others like them who have bought into or have sympathy for an unbridled hatred called jihah.In contrast to them,are all the people who fell victim to this hatred and had their lives stolen from them, their families and friends.This book shows what it means to have good or evil in people's hearts.Unfortunately,the fight against terrorism will be long and difficult,but as history has shown time and time again,that good always prevails over evil.
   This book presents the facts and shows how the terrorists set out to attack America,the bastion for freedom and liberty for the world.They were encouraged by a lack of action,and further, took advantage of the freedoms enjoyed in the country and the great benefit of doubt given them by a country whose fundamental concept is of freedom and liberty of the individual,whoever he is.While they like to demand,and take advantage of this free society,would themselves deny it to others,and seek to destroy it while imposing their own sick oppression,tyranny and hatred on their own people and anyone else they can.
   While most of this book is very good,I take great exception to the attempt to compare 9/11 with Hiroshima,on page 247.
   "Perhaps the only comparable event in history was Hiroshima,but even Hiroshimahad had taken place in the context of a declared war.Hiroshima was a surprise attack but not a sneak attack.Sept 11 was both.Pearl Harbor,maybe,but no warped stretch of any demented imagination,can a comparison of 9/11 and Hiroshima be made!Any such thinking is deplorable.
   20 years of terrorist attacks going unanswered forced America to embark on The War on Terror.There is only one outcome that can be an option;and that has to,and will be, complete victory.Anything else is unthinkable.
   And then again, on page 251,"What happened in Hiroshima and in the terrorism [in New York] is the same because there are many people who can't recover one tooth or one nail."Again,an unbelievable notion.
   A very important paragraph on page 250 deserves quoting.
   "Why were we hated so much? Hadn't we been on the Muslin side in Afghanistin? Didn't we help Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo? Wasn't it the case that millions of Muslins ,as
   president Bush pointed out in his speech before Congress,practiced their religion freely in the United States of America,to which they had come of their own free will? Clearly,we had something to learn about the unreasoning and unreasonable anti-American fury that existed in the Muslin world,where Osama bin Laden was being treated not as a villain but as a hero.There was a lesson there someplace,and it would be contemplated for a long time into the future.In the meantime,public support quickly built, not just for a retalitory strike,a few cruise missles launched at a target,but for a long and complicated war against an only semivisible adversary.The Bush administration vowed to fight that war for a long time ,against the terrorists themselves and against those who harbored terrorists,which in the first instance, meant Osama bin Laden and the Taliban of Afghanistan."
   How can anyone who is unwilling to fight for freedom expect to live in freedom?
   I am writing this review just 4 days before the FREE ELECTION is to take place in Iraq.
   Many countries have failed to support America,and it appears many would be joyful if America fails in her War on Terror.America won't fail and is in for the long haul;just as she was in WW1,WW11,struggle against Communism and other wars.These countries should ponder the President,s words."Either you're with us or against us."
   On page 187 we are reminded of what the President said on Septmber 11,2001:
   "Terrorism against our nation will not stand."
   He has remained true to that promise.
   God Bless America!



4. I found this book to be very good. It introduces you to many people involved to day.....from Mohammed Atta to the pilot of flight 11 to firefighters. I felt the book did a good job of portraying the events of that day from many different points of view. If you are looking for a book with lots of photos, this isn't the book. There's a small section of photos of some victims and photos of every hijacker involved that day. It also gives a detailed description of Osama Bin Laden and why he feels the way he does towards the U.S. The only part I didn't like is it kind of jumped around a little bit in the beginning. It starts with how different people started their days. It takes you almost up to the point when the first plane hit, then for several chapters talks about Osama Bin Laden. I actually skipped the whole Osama part until I had read everything else in the book. That's my only complaint. The last few chapters I found so gripping that I couldn't put the book down. I would def. recommend this book



5. While this book was OK, I found too much about bin Laden within the pages. I felt that part should be a separate book. All-in-all it was a fast read and somewhat informative. Good book for students to use if they are looking for both sides of the story.