No comments about Understanding Terriorism and Political Violence.

5 comments about The Rage and The Pride.

1. Having written a factually accurate book she was condemned to death by the islamic hordes. They threatened, hounded, followed her and all of her family. She died a natural death quietly.
   A MUST READ for anyone that knows and understands the deadly threat coming from the cult of islam. Borrow, steal or buy, but read.



2. With a rare courage and honesty, Oriana Fallaci shinest the light of the truth and candid scrutiny on her country and the world- breaking a ten year silence after the horrific terrorist attacks in New York on September 11, 2001.
   
   A modern day version of Emile Zola's J'Accuse, Fallaci steps in boldly where most fear to tread, exposing the truths that all of us know but all fear to speak. Fallaci writes that this book was an effort to "open the eyes of those who do not want to see, to unplug the ears of those who do not want to listen, to ignite the thoughts of those who do not want to think"
   She does this admirably. She attacks Islamic fundamentalists and the arrogance of the politically correct elite whom she refers to as the "cicadas".
   Fallaci was a teenage partisan during the Second World War, fighting Mussolini's Fascist regime in Italy and was an intrepid journalist for decades, covering many wars and struggles. Fallaci writes of the frightening Islamic terror network which is growing like a cancer in Europe, protected by the politically correct Left, who manipulate or deny the evidence.
   She writes of her pride in her Italian culture and swears that if Moslem terrorists destroy any of her countrie's landmarks and treasures: "I swear: It is I who would become the holy warrior...War you wanted? War you want? As far as I am concerned war is war and war will be. Until the last breath."
   If their were more people like Fallaci in the West and Israel, we could certainly win the battle against the Islamo-Nazis and their cheerleaders on the international left.
   Fallaci aptly points out the reasons for Islamic terror:
   "Dont you see that all these Ousamas Bin Laden consider themselves authorized to kill you and your children because you drink alcohol, because you don't grow the long beard and refuse the chador or the burkah, because you go the theater and to the movies, because you love music and siing a song, because you dance and watch television, because you wear the miniskirt or the shorts, because on the beach and by the swimming pool you sunbathe or almost naked or naked, because you make love when you want or with whom you want..."
   She also attacks the politically correct hypocrites of the left who in the name of Humanitarianism revere the invaders and slander the defenders, absolve the delinquents and condemmn the victims, weep for the Taleban and curse the Americans, forgive the Palestinians for every wrong and the Israelis for nothing.
   
   You HAVE to read this book if you want to understand the great strugles the world is faced with at the dawn of the 21st century.



3. Let there be no mistake. This is a book that explodes with passion. Ordinarily that would give pause at the prospect of blind invective.
   But.... Fallaci's anger at the violent Islamists and their quiet co-religionists is exceeded only by her fury at a politically correct west that refuses to see our values as high ones, and refuses to see the existential threat facing us. Indeed, she is totally bent out of shape, and properly so, at our propensity to be so fair to everyone, that it reaches the absurd extent of viewing the openly presented Islamist threat to us as just a different culture we are supposed to understand. I can only hope that her book makes a positive contribution to waking us up, because, it is invective and personal, to be sure, but it is also based on horrific facts we must face, as a prerequisite to defending ourselves.



4. I will say right now (and warn those with more....*delicate* sensibilities) that this book will make you feel one of two emotions: love or hate. You'll either understand and see *exactly* what Oriana Fallaci wanted her readers to see and hear (she wrote a letter in an Italian newspaper, and this book is that letter plus added material that never made it into the paper), or else you'll vehemently deny all she has to say and call her a bigot, hate-monger, and anti-Islam. If you are part of the latter group, congratulations, you are the "cicadas" the very type of person she abhors for their willful denial of what is going around them regarding Islam.
   
   This book is no objective, detailed analysis of Islam. Fallaci states up-front that she is not ashamed to say what she has to say. The very first page after the preface, she states, "I am very, very, very angry. Angry with a rage which is cold, lucid, rational". This book's audience is mainly those who are still blind and deaf, in her own words: "a work which aimed at unplugging the ears of the deaf and opening the eyes of the blind".
   
   She is unafraid of what people think of her views, and the letter, later which became this book. The letter she wrote was in reaction to September 11 (she had left Italy, more like *driven* away by her detractors). She broke her years of silence, because in her words: "there are moments in Life when keeping silent becomes a fault, and speaking an obligation". No longer able to stay silent, in the after-math of September 11, as shocked and horrified as any American, she wrote long and furiously. All her sorrow, rage, and passion came out onto paper. The result was what she called, "a scream of rage and pride".
   
   Fallaci pulls no punches. She doesn't sugar-coat her words for the easily offended. She is blunt, brutally honest, and scathing in her opinion of her politically correct-minded country (which, she doesn't hesitate to add, also includes all of Western Europe). She laments how this political correct establishment turns a blind eye to the terrorists in their midst, all the while harping and hating America and its own identity as a country and people. She rails against this establishment that would rather willingly submit to a culture that suppresses ideas and freedoms and individuals and appease, than to stand up and be courageous.
   
   This book also doesn't mince words when it comes to describing the atrocities committed by the terrorists or how the mass Muslim immigration to her country (and the rest of Western Europe) is slowly, but surely causing it to rot from the inside. For her willingness to state bluntly how she felt about the terrorists and Islam, she received death threats, but continued to voice her opinions that were *not* politically correct. For this she was demonized and hated.
   
   The Rage and The Pride was a refreshing book, refreshing in that Fallaci said what she meant and meant what she said. No spin, or skirting of the issue, or waffling on an issue. She was one of the rare people in our overly sensitive and prickly society that didn't give a damn what other people thought. The truth is not always a pretty picture and *must* be told, and she understood this. It's a shame Fallaci passed away. I also recommend reading While Europe Slept: How radical Islam is destroying the West from within by Bruce Bawyer in addition to this book.



5. Fallaci here is not telling the world anything that it does not know...she is just reminding them. All the many abuses waged against the Western world by Islamic culture are collected and retold in this small volume, since we in the ever-tolerant West are always apt to forget them. She reminds us that it is not a question of how to coexist, but a stark reminder that coexistence is impossible. Their very religion/culture teaches that to coexist with the "infidel" is a sin.
   
   Fallaci's "sermon" is heartening because it can, and does in several spots, give the America reader something that he desperately needs--a morale boost from a foreign source. We get so used to hearing the world cat call us and to watching them burn our flags, that sometimes we forget why we bother to help anyone. Fallaci reminds us that there are some out there (even in Europe) who not only respect America but love it "like a husband", as Fallaci writes.

5 comments about Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy.

1. This is not a book about secret operations or police actions against terrorism. This text is about the phenomenom of terrorism, its different manifestations and the kinds of groups related to this activities. Mr. Pillar explains the methods for answering the terrorist threat and -contrary to what many may think- he relegates military actions to the last place of the list. This book was written before September 11, 2001, but certainly it helps explain why the attacks took place and sets the path to prevent such acts in the future. This book is also important for those interested on the legal aspects of terrorism, because it deals with different instruments adopted to combat this threat. For every person who would like to form his/her own opinion on how to fight terrorism, this text is a must read.



2. Mr. Pillar makes many very interesting and well-balanced points in writing this book. His suggestions are quite well founded and realistic.

   Too often suggested methods to combat terrorism are either inadequate or too extraordinary to be accomplished. Pillar offers very plausible and level-headed suggestions and expectations for the United States' counter-terrorism programs.




3. Paul R. Pillar has written in clear wording how terrorism has affected the United States Foreign Policy. Paul R. Pillar He pulls the curtain away from the terrorism mystic. You will learn about the other ways of dealing terrorism other than just the military option. For example
   
   Counterterrorist Instruments:
   1. Diplomacy
   2. Criminal Law
   3. Financial Controls
   4. Military Force
   5. Intelligence and Covert Action
   
   Mr. Pillar explains how to use the instruments to their fullest extent, even when one instrument might not be the best in the long run, it might just be effective at the moment
   
   Experts in the field of Terrorism have this work on their reference book shelf.



4. Measured perhaps is the word that best describes this book. Paul Pillar has clearly attempted to present the issues of terrorism in a dispassionate and reasoned manner. For the most part he has succeeded. He also provides the readers of the paperback edition of this book with a new introductory essay that ties the events of the 9/11 terrorist attacks into the main themes of the book. The book provides a useful basis for any discussion on the nature of terrorism and counter terrorism.
   
   It is also a book is filled with interesting observations and comments. For example, anyone who has read Ron Suskind's book, "The One Per Cent Doctrine" undoubtedly remembers Vice President Cheney's comment to George Tenet that, "If there's a one per cent chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al Qaeda to build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have treat it as a certainty in terms of our response." This book which was published well before the Suskind book, provides the reader with the same concept after someone, presumably Tenet, translated it into bureaucratese "...the potential consequences of CBRN weapons getting into the hands of terrorist groups are so severe that the possibility must be countered no matter how low the probability."
   
   Of course this book, like so many written by former government officials is self serving. Pillar probably was forced out as the Deputy Chief of the Counter Terrorism Center (CTC) of the CIA, but the reasons for this are unclear. In any event he spends a good deal of the book justifying the work of CIA and providing what has become the standard Government Official response to critics of the Agency by claiming that: the problems raised by the critics are bogus and show a misunderstanding of how the agency operates and besides which action has already been taken internally to correct them. Nonetheless the book is worth reading and contributes to our understanding of the phenomena of terrorism.



5. Pillar's importance has come to light to "the mainstream" of American thought after his piece titled "War, Policy, and the War in Iraq" came out in Foreign Affairs critizing the current war. Pillar, however, has had a long established career in foreign policy work. The book is not an "easy read" and is quite technical, but it is an essential read if you want to know what our country's top analysts think is the best way to deal with "terrorism". Furthermore, his insight into Bin Laden and his Al-Queda organization is very interesting as this book which was written before 9/11.

5 comments about 9-11.

1. Very disappointed with the book that I didn't even finish reading it. The book is more or less an interview with Chomsky. It really didn't offer any insight to 911 and it didn't offer anything new. I expected more out of this book and from Chomsky.



2. Look up the "5 Dancing Israelis" and Building 7. It's called controlled opposition, disregard and find out the real truth about 9/11.



3. Noam Chomsky could well be the character upon whom famed intellectual/cannibalistic mass murderer Hannibal Lecter is based. Brilliant in his chosen field (that's linguistics, not political science), he nonetheless is possessed of an insatiable need to feed on the flesh of the nation that welcomed his people while the Europeans were burning Jews' homes, and preparing to do much worse.
   
   9-11 is a miserable, malicious, and awesomely unsophisticated villification of the greatest and most successful country in the history of mankind, the United States of America.
   
   If you want to know why your toddler knows the f-word even though you never said it in front of him, read Chomsky. If you want a cogent and insightful analysis of American foreign policy and the politics of Muslim fanaticism, you'd do just as well to ask that same toddler as to read this glob of moronic silt.



4. This is a collection of talks and interviews so it lacks the political models and theories that Chomsky applies to U.S. politics and media that are found in his larger and more in depth works.
   
   This book is probably best suited for the moderate dissident or progressive who has read only minimally on the subject. This text has nothing to do with 9/11 conspiracy theories or the 9/11 truth movement.
   
   What it does contain is context to help people put the 9/11 attacks in perspective. During the Russian occupation of Afghanistan the U.S. and others armed, trained, and funded several radical Islamism groups to engage in low intensity conflict with the Russians. Many of these groups ascribe to a purist form of Islam that deems any foreign influence in Arab lands as an abomination. These groups were not particularly popular among Arabs, but through foreign support they became quite powerful militarized organizations.
   
   Since then they have been doing more of the same, which is basically fighting a holy war against imperialism in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are constantly being targeted by them. These groups have dissolved and reconstituted themselves and have had a variety of names over the years, they fight each other and are mostly funded by drug profits. Al Qaeda is one of these organizations. They had very little power before they received foreign support to fight the Russians.
   
   Basically the people we gave the guns to do our dirty work turned them on us after they had served their purpose.
   
   In the book, Chomsky advocates a peaceful approach to resolving the conflict, predicting the negative affects on the civilian populations that result from military conflict will lead more people to sympathize with Bin Laden's cause. The bombing Afghanistan halted U.N. food aide shipments to the millions who are starving there, resulting in unknown death tolls. While the Arab world was overwhelmingly appalled by the events of 9/11, taking it out on civilian populations (unintentionally, incidentally or otherwise) will only increase support for Bin Laden's efforts.
   
   This prediction has been proven true by a NSA report two years ago that said as a result of the war in Iraq Al Qaeda has increased in number and organization and we are now more at risk of an attack as the result of our actions.
   
   After reading all the one star reviews, would estimate that at most 4 of the people who left them have actually read the book, and every single one of them misrepresents Chomsky's views completely.
   
   If you're interested in this book, read it and form your own opinions.



5. I'm a pretty avid reader of Noam Chomsky, but this book was a disappointment. What I found absurd was his comparison of 9-11 with Clinton's bombing of Sudan. They are not morally equivalent-actually Chomsky actually goes farther than claiming moral equivalence and says Clinton's actions were worse. It should be obvious that the bombing of Sudan was an attempt to kill Al-Qaeda members, not civilians, while the 9-11 terrorists deliberately targeted civilians, in the hope of killing as many as possible. Sam Harris does a great analysis of this book in his work The End of Faith. Todd Gitlin, as far from a right-winger as one can be, also harshly criticized 9-11 in the Nation.
   
   I cannot recommend this book. If you want a good Chomsky book, try Failed States or the Indispensable Chomsky.

4 comments about Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues.

1. Martin's book is a very detailed review, with examples, of alternative motivations and ideological orientation of 20th and 21st century terrorists. The web links and details about terrorist organizations are very good but the later chapters are a bit redundant. It is a fine primer on terrorism but his attempt to create typologies for all manner of information is less-than-successful because categories in later chapters are either overlapping or describe fairly minor points.



2. The second updated edition of UNDERSTANDING TERRORISM: CHALLENGES, PERSPECTIVES, AND ISSUES is an excellent purchase for both college-level reference holdings and for assigned reading for college-level courses on social issues. Added here is a new chapter on religious terrorism, reviews of new material on gender terrorism and criminal businesses, updates on pedagogy, and a format which includes test questions, amps from the book, and more on both a CD-ROM and an accompanying web site. Plenty of examples from events around the world pepper surveys which cover the politics, economics, and social foundations of international terrorist experiences.
   
   Diane C. Donovan, Editor
   California Bookwatch



3. This book is a terrific intro to terrorism and its history, but more than that it really depends on what you hope to achieve by reading this book. If this book has been assigned by a professor, you are on your way to a fundamental understanding of terrorism and its consequences, root causes, etc. If you are reading this book for leisure, with no lecture/seminar accompanying it, then it is a good read but not as worthwhile. I would recommend books by the pre-eminent scholars of terrorism like Bruce Hoffman, and his mentor Walter Lacquer.



4. "Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues," Second Edition, by C. Augustus "Gus" Martin, over 14 Chapters, addresses terrorism from multiple perspectives: the political right and left, state and non-state, religious and secular, criminal and non-criminal. Each chapter is supported by end notes and the book contains an appendix for maps, one for historical examples, and a glossary/index. There is no bibliography.
   
   Chapter 6, "Violence in the Name of Faith: Religious Terrorism," pages 182-217 devotes a section to "Understanding Jihad as a Primary Religious Motive: An Observation and Caveat" which is covered on pages 187-188. Martin makes the following observations:
   
   (1) "One such misunderstanding is the common belief that the concept of "holy war" is an underlying principle of the Islamic Faith. Another misunderstanding is that Muslims are united in supporting jihad. This is simplistic and fundamentally incorrect. Although the term "jihad" is widely presumed in the West to refer exclusively to waging war against nonbelievers, an Islamic jihad is not the equivalent to a Christian Crusade" p. 187.
   
   (2) "It is permissible - and even a duty - to wage war to defend the faith against aggressors. Under this type of jihad warfare is conceptually defensive in nature; in contrast the Christian Crusades were conceptually offensive in nature" p. 188.
   
   "Holy war" is not an underlying principle of Islam, but as a strategic theme within Islam, "jihad" is. Within the Koran, the Haddiths, and the Sunna, less than ten percent of the discussion is on the greater jihad (personal striving) while the remaining 90 percent is on the lesser jihad (warfighting). Martin fails to identify or discuss the combat, combat support and combat service support obligations of jihad contained in Islamic Law (the Koran, the Haddiths, and the Sunna) and clarified in Islamic legal texts such as "Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law" p. 599-605, "The Distinguished Jurist's Primer" (Vol 1 and 2) p. 454-487, and "Riyad-us-Saliheen" p. 976-1016.
   
   Martin states that jihad is defensive while the Crusades were offensive. A reading of the above legal texts gives insight to the term "defensive." In war, unbelievers are offered three alternatives: Conversion, subjugation and payment of the jizya, or war. A refusal to submit is an offensive act and the resulting combat is, from the Islamic perspective, defensive. Martin fails to inform the reader of this key distinction and its implications.
   
   With regard to the Crusades, Martin fails to tell the reader that the First Crusade was a delayed response to Islamic expansion and the capture by Islam of 1/3 of the Christian lands. Islam's strategic offense triggered Christianity's strategic defense: the First Crusade.
   
   Martin states that "The Five Pillars are faith, prayer, zakat (alms or charity), fasting during the month of Ramadan, and the hajj (pilgrimage) to the holy city of Mecca, Saudi Arabia, for those who are able" p. 202. A check of the index fails to reveal a more substantive discussion on zakat that should have told the reader that there are eight categories of disbursement in zakat, three of which support jihad: Those fighting in the way of Allah; those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and travelers needing money. Of these three obligatory categories of disbursement, the most significant is "Those Fighting For Allah" which is defined by "Reliance of the Traveller", p.272, as "Those engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster; Given enough to suffice them for the operation even if affluent of: weapons, mounts, clothing, expenses, and for the duration of the journey, round trip, and the time they spend there. Current interpretation and practice has been to provide expenses in supporting such person's family during this period." Martin fails to explain to the reader that zakat (almsgiving in Islam) is an asymmetrical warfare funding mechanism.
   
   The failure to more fully develop the discussion on jihad outlining the combat, combat support and combat service support obligations Islamic Law imposes on Muslims, the failure to carefully characterize and define the term "defensive" in the context of "defensive jihad", the failure to articulate the offensive expansion triggering the First Crusade, and the failure to fully explain the true nature of zakat (almsgiving) seriously undermine the value of "Understanding Terrorism" as a credible reference.

5 comments about The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11.

1. Osama bin Laden and the American left have forged a tacit agreement to secure the defeat of the United States in Iraq. That's premise number one in Dinesh D'Souza's book, The Enemy at Home. A second premise is that the global war against Islamic radicalism is linked to the Red-Blue culture war at home--and that success in the first struggle is linked to aggressive engagement in the second. A third proposition is that victory in the global war on Islamic radicalism requires an alliance between American conservatives and traditional Muslims--an alliance that deplores not only acts of terror but also the libertine culture that Blue America is exporting around the world.
   
   D'Souza obviously knows that the American left and Muslim radicals have vastly different agendas. The former seek to make the U.S., and eventually the world, safe for pornography (i.e. for secular liberalism's vision of individual autonomy), while the latter want to establish Sharia throughout the Middle East, then elsewhere. At present, however, a marriage of convenience exists between the atheistic left and Islamic terrorists--since both sides see their power enhanced by hanging a Vietnam-style defeat on President Bush in Iraq.
   
   Politics makes strange bedfellows, but this pairing rivals in cynicism the per-hour sexual unions employed by mullahs-in-heat to maintain de jure chastity (a curious practice described in D'Souza's overview of Muslim mores). Still, the author's thesis gains plausibility from the fact that OBL's pre-election message in 2004 was largely indistinguishable from the rhetoric employed by leftists like Michael Moore. As D'Souza observes, "If you presume that [leftists] want Bush to win and bin Laden to lose the war on terror, their rhetoric and actions are utterly baffling. By contrast, if you presume that they want bin Laden to win and Bush to lose the war, then their statements and actions make perfect sense."
   
   But why would the American left want George Bush, and thus the U.S., to lose the war in Iraq? Put succinctly, because it "fears Bush more than bin Laden." For leftists the "near enemy" threatens to tip the balance of judicial power, which has been employed for decades to impose liberal dogma on a reluctant public, back toward traditional jurisprudence. Consequently, a new foreign policy debacle is needed to discredit conservatives, unite liberals and leftists, and consolidate power in the hands of justices whose "sweet mystery of life" decisions consistently undermine traditional values. The left's first priority is to defeat the "Christian fascists" in America--those folks who oppose abortion, abhor gay marriage, and embrace standards of propriety that (except for Europe and Blue America) are recognized around the globe. If countless Iraqis must die or suffer under an Iran-style regime to secure this domestic political objective, so be it.
   
   Osama bin Laden, for his part, is happy to have American allies whose short-term foreign policy objectives coincide with his own--even if the secular left is precisely the group pushing a worldwide cultural agenda that is anathema to both Al Qaeda and traditional Muslims. The antipathy of traditional Muslims to secular hedonism is a fact largely ignored by conservatives seeking allies in the misnamed "war on terror." D'Souza, however, far from viewing culture as a footnote, notes that Islamic radicals from Sayyid Qutb to Osama have fervently denounced the seductive power of American television, movies, music, and mores. Indeed, both radical and not-so-radical Muslims view this corrupt culture as a mortal threat to Islam. Moreover, the U.S., due to the quantity and prominence of its cultural exports, is seen as the focus of Western decadence in the world--"the head of the snake." Neither "Western imperialism" nor (as it seems to Arabs) America's puzzling support for Israel is viewed with similar existential dread.
   
   To emphasize this point, D'Souza provides a penance-inducing portrait of American cultural depravity--an undertaking unprecedented among foreign policy analysts. For traditional cultures, entertainments like gangsta' rap, Two and a Half Men, Howard Stern, and The Vagina Monologues are grossly offensive. (D'Souza gives details that transform vapid words like "explicit" and "mature" into "when I see it" obscenities that would curl Potter Stewart's toenails.) Unlike Western liberals, Muslims in Iraq, Egypt, or Indonesia don't equate freedom with flagrant violations of traditional morality. Indeed, for them, as for Red America, public laws that bolster families with a father, a mother, and children seem both natural and sensible--whereas a society that legalizes pornography, sexualizes children, makes abortion-on-demand a fundamental right, and puts a stamp of approval on homosexual unions seems positively demented. Yet this is the society that single-child leftists, via their Hollywood cohorts, are foisting on cultures around the world.
   
   Moreover, because of popular resistance, leftists require the aid of U.N. agencies, Planned Parenthood, the Ford Foundation, George Soros, and various other NGOs to do to traditional cultures what they've already done to America. In this effort, pliable dictators often serve the left's purposes better than democratic governments--a fact illustrated by war critics' nostalgia for Saddam's "equal rights for women" tyranny. (Indeed, as liberal author Thomas Frank notes, even Kansans can't be trusted to vote as they should--thus the need for an imperial judiciary.) Liberalism and democracy, D'Souza observes, are distinct concepts, and leftists have always been willing to ditch democracy to achieve their ideological goals--social equality, lifestyle liberties, and dogmatic secularism.
   
   The irony of this devilish compact between leftists and Islamic radicals is that Westerners who despise Islam as much as they hate traditional Christians, find themselves on the side of "redeployment"--a policy whose likely result will be the victory of radicals in Iraq. Conversely, Islamic radicals are content to empower abroad a group that sponsors aggressive global secularization. The upside of this deal for team-Osama, however, goes beyond the plum of Iraq, since its consummation highlights American weakness. Moreover, as secular liberals assume power in America, it becomes easier to convince traditional Muslims that the U.S., like the Soviet Union, is a drunken giant ready to collapse.
   
   As D'Souza shows, leftist foreign policy has been extremely successful at conveying this impression of the U.S. to Muslim radicals. Jimmy Carter's disastrous decision to undermine the Shah of Iran paved the way for the first Islamic state--a huge radical victory. Bill Clinton's abrupt withdrawal from Somalia in 1993, after eighteen troops were killed in Mogadishu, inspired bin Laden to depict Americans as cut-and-run cowards. Five years later, the same President's Monica-timed cruise missile response to devastating attacks against American embassies in Africa, led an Islamic activist to consider sending a chastity belt to the White House to help Clinton improve his aim "the next time." D'Souza notes, poignantly, that for Clinton "there would not be a next time"--not even after an Al Qaeda orchestrated attack on the U.S.S. Cole blasted "a forty-foot hole in the ship's hull and [killed] seventeen sailors." Such self-defeating, feckless policies, D'Souza argues, confirmed the radicals' belief that America, despite its wealth and military assets, had lost the will to fight. And that conviction paved the way for 9/11--thus earning the cultural left (because of its foreign policy failures and tawdry cultural exports) primary "responsibility" for those attacks.
   
   Despite these withering cultural and foreign policy critiques, D'Souza repeatedly defends the left against charges of anti-Americanism. Leftists, the author notes, promote their beliefs, just as conservatives do. Indeed, they are even willing to employ military force, if necessary, to set up an ideological soul mate in Haiti. In the end, however, D'Souza's defense is Pyrrhic--and is probably offered to deflect criticism of his own audacious analysis. The left's "America," as D'Souza shows, is a country where patriotism and religion are suspect, where loyalty rests with international organizations, and where governments exist to redistribute wealth and enforce whatever dictates du jour are issued by the gods of political correctness. Its America, in other words, is a nation that repudiates the traditional values cherished by almost all Americans up to, but not beyond, "the greatest generation." To argue in its defense that "the left wants America to be a shining beacon of global depravity, a kind of Gomorrah on a Hill," is no defense at all. Moreover, by D'Souza's lax standard, even Americans who spied for the Soviets could be deemed patriotic, since they also wished to make the country better--in the image of Joseph Stalin. More to the point, leftists who now want America to lose the war in Iraq and become like Europe are cosmopolitans, not patriots. They "love America" the same way Howard Zinn does--with reckless contempt.
   
   D'Souza's proposals for defeating the Al Qaeda-Michael Moore axis include perseverance in the attempt to establish a democratic Iraq. Also needed, but at present woefully lacking, is serious political focus on the values that Red America shares with most Muslims around the world. Rather than demonizing Islam, defending the newly-minted right to blaspheme, and pushing Western cultural standards on reluctant Muslims, conservatives should denounce the corrupt culture promoted by the secular left and embrace the right of Muslims to configure democracies that reflect their religious and historical traditions. Instead of lecturing Arab women on the joys of chauffeurless driving, administration officials should join forces with them in conferences designed to showcase the devastation wrought by Western pop-culture. Only by highlighting the ideals cherished by Red America (natural rights and external moral standards) and repudiating the excesses of Blue America can conservatives hope to persuade traditional Muslims that at least half of the U.S. (the half despised by Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins) isn't intent on destroying their faith.
   
   That "traditional Muslims are the only people who are capable of stopping radical Islam" is a notion that's been bandied about in discussions of the "war on terror." D'Souza's book, however, fleshes out the stark implications of that thought. Moderate or liberal Muslims, the author jokes, are already on our side--all eight of them. The remaining billion-plus, however, won't be won over by plaintive denunciations of terrorism or by rapturous paeans to freedom--not as long as they equate "freedom" with Western decadence and "terror" with the only practical means of resisting corruption. Nor will they sign up to fight against fellow believers when reckless statements about their religion are made by supporters of a war against "Islamic fascism." To win the hearts and minds of Muslims, "democracy" and "freedom" must mean something other than MTV and rigidly enforced public secularism. And for this to happen, American rhetoric and policy, vis-à-vis traditional Islamic culture, must change.
   
   Whether most Americans are capable of appreciating and adopting these intellectual distinctions is doubtful--as is also their willingness to publicly denounce, alongside Muslims, the decadent culture in which they have marinated for almost half a century. Certainly, American leftists and their cohorts in the media will dismiss these ideas as the ravings of a right-wing theocrat. (The author provides a list of prominent leftists and leftist groups at the end of his book.) Moreover, assuming D'Souza's analysis of the traditional-radical split in Islam is accurate, it is far from clear that "traditionals" who are currently on the terrorism fence will put their faith in a divided-against-itself country whose cultural exports show no signs of changing in the foreseeable future.
   
   Given these obstacles, D'Souza's concession that his recommendations aren't easy may qualify as the understatement of the post 9/11 century. Still, if traditional Muslims are, indeed, the key to stopping radical Islam, one wonders what other options are available to win their support.
   
   
   Review by Richard Kirk
   
   Richard Kirk is a freelance writer who lives in Oceanside, CA. He is a regular columnist for San Diego's North County Times. His book reviews have appeared in The American Enterprise, First Things, Touchstone, The American Spectator Online, and the California Republic website. See his blog, Richard Kirk on Ethics: Musing With A Hammer.



2. The best part of this book is its analysis on the continued debate of "why they hate us". While I personally agree with D'Souza on many of his points, I can see why others will disagree.
   
   Disagreeing with this book, however, does not mean it is not worth reading. D'Souza's book provides some of the best conservative arguments for domestic and foreign policy that I have read. He presents his points in an intellectual style that I rarely see on either side.
   
   Whether you agree with D'Souza or not, his book is interesting and gets you thinking about our cultural differences and similarities with the Middle East. It is worth reading more than other, more mainstream conservative books written by guys like Hannity or O'Reilly.



3. D'Souza is onto something here. His thesis, that Muslim terrorists hate America because of our permissive (degenerate) society, has more than a grain of truth. It's hardly conjecture: Bin Laden said as much in his Letter to America in 2002: "we call on you to abandon fornication, adultery, gambling, and usury." It is the realization of this often missed variable that makes the Enemy at Home a necessary read.
   
   Unfortunately, D'Souza regrettably grapples with only part of the reason for anti-American hatred. Al-Qaeda also hates our support of Arab secular dictators and our support of Israel. D'Souza barely mentions those causes, and this lack of understanding gravely weakens the book's impact. Nor do I agree with his support for the Iraq war as necessary to fight Bin Laden. The main opponent in Iraq now is Iran. If U.S. troops left, Iran, not Al-Qaeda would be the main player there.
   
   Overall, while I do recommend reading it, I urge the reader not to accept The Enemy at Home as the final word on the subject.



4. A thought provoking book, less inflammatory than its cover might suggest. D'Souza, who has become a serious politics-and-religion intellectual, makes a case that many conservatives will find surprising but that bears consideration: that radical Muslims hate primarily, not Christianity or American democracy, but the decadence spread around the world by America's cultural left - pornography, homosexuality, abortion, atheism, feminism and sex-obsessed pop culture.
   
   Muslims, says D'Souza, see this being forced upon their traditional, non-Western societies where the vast majority of people regard it as harmful, weakening the family - in any poor society an individual's greatest bulwark. Radical Muslims are joined in this, he argues, by traditional Muslims, who differ with the radicals not in their religious purity, but in whether violence is a legitimate means to their end.
   
   Meanwhile, he said, radical Muslims such as Bin Laden have formed a tacit, unlikely alliance with the American left, both seeking Bush's defeat as their primary goal. Bush, meanwhile, has taken the wrong tack in the war, says D'Souza, representing it as the promotion of liberal values in the Middle East. This further alienates vast portions of the societies he seeks to win over. D'Souza finds it ironic that Bush and American conservatives are willing to fight to combat illiberalism in the Middle East, while liberals themselves are not.
   
   To win the war on terror, he says, religious conservatives ought to ally themselves with traditional Muslims, making it clear that they, too, deplore the decadence spread by American pop culture and left-wing advocacy groups. This would help us regain credibility, he says, with religious and traditional people throughout the world who don't want American freedom that translates largely to license.
   
   This, to some extent, has already happened - D'Souza copyright this book in 2007 and I'm guessing he wrote most of it before the 2006 Congressional elections - because the surge's success has been built largely on just such a strategy: allying with the traditional religious and clan leaders in Iraq, and thus splitting them away from the radicals.
   
   D'Souza's account of how, say, his mother - an Indian Christian living in Mumbai - despises the American popular culture she sees on television, will be familiar and believable to many with relatives outside the West. He is at his best citing numerous Muslim sources to prove his point.



5. I have seen who I hate and it is us. The Liberal vs. Conservative spectacle in the US is just that a "SPECTACLE" - See the Spectacle, buy the Merchandise, Share in the Excitement, Anger and Resentment! I hate us whenever I turn on the TV or the radio and I am a Liberal; this has nothing to do with LIBERALS vs. CONSERVATIVES. That is just a required aspect of the Spectacle. The radio is the worst, almost every station is a Pee-Pee Station i.e. a group of DJs saying naughty words and giggling. TV is obviously made for the nearly retarded. "They" hate us, perhaps, but they must also buy us otherwise the marketing would stop. "We" hate us also as you can see by the reviews of this book.

2 comments about Suicide Bombers in Iraq: The Strategy and Ideology of Martyrdom.

1. 
   Professor of political science Mohammed M. Hafez presents Suicide Bombers in Iraq: The Strategy and Ideology of Martyrdom, a scholarly evaluation of the all-too-real cruelty and tragedy of suicide bombing in Iraq. Suicide bombings in Iraq appear to be perpetrated largely by non-Iraqi volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Europe, Syria, Kuwait, Jordan, and North Africa, and the targets are generally either Iraqi security forces and Shia civilians rather than coalition forces. Suicide Bombers in Iraq meticulously dissects and deconstructs the methodologies used to justify suicide bombing and the sectarian equivalent of ethnic cleansing, and adds to the search for means to stem the tide of such attacks. In addition to current strategies, Professor Hafez also recommends a drive to delegitimize suicide bombings, directly attacking the ideological, theological, and other justifications that the masterminds of suicide bombings rely upon to recruit volunteers. Suicide Bombers in Iraq is entirely free of illusions - whether positive or negative - about the Iraq occupation, absolute "must-read" for anyone concerned about the future of Iraq.



2. Professor Hafez breaks down the complex system of Iraq and the insurgency there into a very readable and well organized analysis. I have read almost every book out there on suicide bombers and political violence and this is my favorite since the author takes the reader through a systematic understanding of the motivations behind the suicide bombers.

3 comments about The Hidden History of 9-11.

1. This is an edited work, and I know the work of many of the authors. It is an essential reference, and has additional value for being an update.
   
   Just as we now know that the Warren Commission was a cover-up, and that JFK was murdered by Cuban exiles who used their CIA training and equipment (intended for Castro) to murder JFK and set up Oswald (see Someone Would Have Talked: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the Conspiracy to Mislead History, we now also know that the 9-11 Commission was at best a grotesque combination of neophytes and compromised corrupt individuals, and at worst, a very deliberate red herring.
   
   APPENDIX: 16 Questions on the JFK Assassination by Bertrand Russell in this book is an extraordinary offering. His questions were asked prior to the Warren Commission, and represent the ease with which intelligent citizens can question their government and get at the truth.
   
   I strongly recommend this book, as well as the others listed below, in general order of preference. Use my reviews as executive summaries.
   
   9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA, Fourth Edition
   Vice: Dick Cheney and the Hijacking of the American Presidency
   Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History That Connects the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, and the Great Pyramids
   Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil
   Web of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq, from Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush
   Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq
   The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 (Vintage)
   The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic (Blowback Trilogy)
   The Bush Tragedy
   
   I also recommend all the 9-11 DVDs, easily found by searching Amazon DVD for 9-11, but there are few that are not available on Amazon and are truly extraordinary.
   
   Finally, for the good news, see my briefings to Hackers on Planet Earth this past week, both at the Earth Intelligence Network site, and also the older briefings to Gnomedex and Amazon Developers Conference, via EIN at the EarthWiki. We the People are almost at a point where we can crush the government with truth--non-violent inescapable truth.



2. · AMAZON PRODUCE NUMBER:
   · ISBN-10: 158322825X / ISBN-13: 978-1583228258
   THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11 / July 29, 2008
   Edited by Paul Zarembka
   "
   FIVE STAR RATING BY REVIEWER JIM BARLOW
   
   Paul Zarembka is a professor of economics at the State University of New York at Buffalo. In his new book on the seminal events of September 11, 2001 and the ensuing "War On Terror." he has shown courage, skill and leadership in pulling together the careful research of many writers.
   
   This affordable book with its updates provides an understanding of why we should question the "official conspiracy" theory of what happened on September 11, 2001 and the resulting endless "war on terror" that has turned America into a police state.
   
   Especially pertinent is Diana Ralph's words on page 274 on the contrived Bush doctrine of Islamophobia. We need an enemy to replace the commies of the Cold War. When you understand that, you begin to understand the slant of the daily commercial news.
   
   On page 145, we read, "The Observer's chief reporter, Jason Burke concludes that: `al-Qaeda' is a messy and rough designation, often applied carelessly in the absence of a more useful term."
   
   This book should be on the reference shelf of every political scientist, journalist and anyone concerned about the disastrous path America is taking.
   
   INSIDE THE BOOK:
   
   · How much insider trading occurred in the days leading up to 9-11?
   · How compromised is the evidence against the hijackers?
   · Why were there no military interceptors?
   · To what extent does the testimony of more than five hundred firefighters differ from the official reports of what happened at the World Trade Center buildings that day?
   · How inseparably connected are Western covert operations to al-Qaeda?
   · How is Islamophobia used to sustain American imperialism?
   · What was the 9-11 Commission?
   
   With contributions from Nafeez Mossaddeq Ahmed, Four Arrows, David Ray Griffin, Jay Kolar, David MacGregor, Diana Ralph, Kevin Ryan, and Bryan Sacks, this path breaking work examines 9-11 and its background, showing how much remains unknown and where further investigation and debate is needed.
   
   -----
   CONTENTS
   PREFACE - Paul Zarembka
   SIXTEEN REASONS TO QUESTION THE OFFICIAL STORY ABOUT 9-11 - David Ray Griffin
   
   PART I: HIJACKERS - WHO WERE THEY?
   
   WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE ALLEGED 9-11 HIJACKERS - Jay Kovar
   
   PART II: THE MORNING OF 9-11
   
   INITIATION OF 9-11 OPERATIONS WITH EVIDENCE OF INSIDER TRADING BEFOREHAND - Paul Zarembka
   
   THE DESTRUCTION OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER: WHY THE OFFICIAL REPORT CANNOT BE TRUE - David Ray Griffin
   
   THE MILITARY DRILLS ON 9-11: "BIZARRE COINCIDENCE" OR SOMETHING ELSE? - Four Arrows (aka Don Trent Jacobs)
   
   PART III: THE CONTEXT OF 9-11 AND MEANING
   FOR THE FUTURE
   
   TERRORISM AND STATECRAFT: AL-QAEDA AND WESTERN COVERT OPERATIONS AFTER THE COLD WAR - Nafeez Mossaddeq Ahmed
   
   SEPTEMBER 11 AS "MACHIAVELLIAN STATE TERROR" - David MacGregor
   
   MAKING HISTORY: THE COMPROMISED 9-11 COMMISSION -
   Bryan Sacks
   
   ISLAMOPHOBIA AND THE "WAR ON TERROR": THE CONTINUING PRETEXT FOR U.S. IMPERIAL CONQUEST - Diana Ralph
   
   PART IV: UPDATES
   
   UPDATE: WHAT WE NOW KNOW ABOUT THE ALLEGED 9-11 HIJACKERS - Jay Kolar
   
   UPDATE: INITIATION OF THE 9-11 OPERATION, WITH EVIDENCE OF INSIDER TRADING BEFOREHAND - Paul Zarembka
   
   UPDATE: THE DESTRUCTION OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER: WHY THE OFFICIAL ACCOUNT CANNOT BE TRUE - David Ray Griffin
   
   UPDATE: THE MILITARY DRILLS ON 9-11: "BIZARRE COINCIDENCE" OR SOMETHING ELSE? - Four Arrows (aka Don Trent Jacobs)
   
   UPDATE: SEPTEMBER 11 AS "MACHIAVELLIAN STATE TERROR" - David MacGregor
   
   A GOVERNMENT SCIENTIST SEES PHYSICS THAT DON'T EXIST -
   Kevin Ryan
   
   APPENDIX: 16 QUESTIONS ON THE JFK ASSASSINATION - Bertrand Russell
   ------
   
   373 pages, with extensive notes, author index and subject index.
   
   
   SEVEN STORIES PRESS
   WWW.SEVENSTORIES.COM
   ISBN-978-1-58332-825-8
   
   
   This book is a good beginning for the curious and concerned. Page xiii has a few of the recommended sites for additional information. To this list should be added http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html, Barrie Zwicker's book, "Towers of Deception - The Media Cover-Up of 9/11" and Greg Felton's book, "The Host and The Parasite."
   
   
   Highly Recommended By The Salmon Valley Observer
   Jim Barlow, Editor
   salmonvalley@att.net



3. THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11, edited by Paul Zarembka, professor of economics at SUNY Buffalo, is a revised and updated second edition of an important early contribution to the growing scholarly analysis of 9/11. The first, hardback edition is so expensive that few have been able to read the book until now, so its entire content will be new to virtually everyone. It presents detailed analyses by academics of the official account of what happened on that day, highlighting innumerable serious problems that demonstrate that the official story is clearly false. The book contains three contributions from David Ray Griffin, and one each from Kevin Ryan and Nafeez Ahmed, all well-known to seekers of 9/11 truth. In addition it presents worthy contributions from Zarembka himself, Jay Kolar, Don Jacobs, David MacGregor, Bryan Sacks and Diana Ralph.
   
   "Part I: Hijackers - Who Were They?" consists of one article, "What We Now Know About the Alleged 9-11 Hijackers" by Jay Kolar, a film scholar who brings his expertise to bear on the photo and video evidence presented by the US government to substantiate its account. He finds numerous serious problems with the video evidence for the hijackers purportedly taken at airport boarding gates by security cameras, concluding that "no evidence exists that any of the `hijackers' ever boarded planes that crashed on 9-11" (p.9). He concludes that the "confessional" video of "Osama bin Laden" taking responsibility for the attacks is a forgery (p.10). He then provides a detailed analysis of the FBI's identification of the hijackers, pointing out that at least ten of the 19 men on the official list of hijackers were alive four years after 9/11, and that contradictions in the official account of their activities prior to the attacks show that "doubles" were used to build up false "legends" for them.
   
   "Part II - The Morning of 9-11" consists of three articles. The first, by Zarembka, "Initiation of the 9-11 Operation", looks at the evidence for actual takeoff and hijacking of each flight, concluding that all flights did indeed depart from the claimed airports and were indeed diverted from their planned flight paths. He then usefully explores three different methods by which planes could have been flown into the WTC towers and (allegedly) the Pentagon, by suicide pilots, by remote control ("homing"), and by substitution of drones for the claimed airliners. Finally, Zarembka analyzes the evidence for insider trading in the stocks of United and American airlines during the week before the attacks (the "put options"), concluding that the 9/11 Commission's dismissal of this possibility is unconvincing.
   
   In "The Destruction of the World Trade Center," David Ray Griffin, emeritus professor of philosophy of religion and theology at Claremont, provides a detailed summary of the wide array of physical and eye-witness evidence for controlled demolition of the the Twin Towers and Building 7. After establishing that no steel-framed skyscrapers had ever collapsed due to fire before 9/11, he surveys the multiple evidence for controlled demolition of the WTC buildings, including: the sudden onset of collapse; the straight-down fall of the buildings (these giant towers did not topple over, but fell vertically into their "footprints"); the almost free-fall speed of the collapses, a physical impossibility unless the steel support columns had lost integrity throughout their length (hard to explain by fires restricted to a few upper floors); the total collapse, involving all of the interior and exterior columns, despite the fact that the planes which struck the two towers would have damaged just a few columns (and of course, WTC 7 was not struck by any plane); the sliced steel from the columns, into sections short enough to be trucked away; pulverization of concrete and other materials, with massive dust production and huge dust clouds energetically ejecting outward (a physical process requiring vastly more energy than was available from gravity alone); horizontal ejections of huge steel beams outward for hundreds of feet; demolition rings (i.e., continuous series of explosions running rapidly around a building) and associated explosive sounds witnessed by many first responders; and large pools of molten metal in the subbasements of each building for weeks afterward. Griffin provides testimony from the oral histories collected by the Fire Department of New York from first responders to substantiate each type of indicator of controlled demolition. The chapter concludes with a succinct survey of the collapse of Building 7 (never even mentioned by the 9/11 Commission), in an obvious classic controlled demolition. This article provides the best overview available of the physical evidence for demolition of the three WTC buildings.
   
   In "The Military Drills on 9-11", Don Jacobs (a.k.a. "Four Arrows"), professor at Fielding Graduate University, surveys the evidence concerning an array of military exercises that were in operation on 9/11, which could have provided cover for the attacks by confusing air defense personnel, so that the normal response to intercept the planes in the flight emergencies could not occur (perhaps rendering a "stand down" order unnecessary). He identifies the following drills in operation that day: Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Northern Vigilance, Northern Guardian, Tripod II, Amalgam Virgo, Timely Alert II, and an exercise at the National Reconnaissance Office simulating the crash of a plane into the NRO headquarters building. He shows that there has been a "big hush" about the exercises, with little official information about them made available (almost no mention of any of them is made by the 9/11 Commission, of course), and that the potential impact of the drills on normal air defense procedures was likely to have been highly significant and deleterious. Jacobs then argues that Dick Cheney was ultimately in charge of the military drills in operation on 9/11.
   
   "Part III: The Context of 9-11 and Meaning for the Future" contains four articles surveying the deep background and broader implications of the attacks. In "Terrorism and Statecraft: Al-Qaeda and Western Covert Operations after the Cold War" Nafeez Ahmed, executive director of the Institute for Policy Research and Development (London), lays out a detailed critique of mainstream analyses of the origin and nature of Al Qaeda. Ahmed argues that Al Qaeda is not a centralized organization, but rather a "database of pseudo-Islamist covert operations" created by the CIA to manage the "covert destabilization ... in new theatres of operation strategically close to Russian and Chinese influence, namely Eastern Europe, the Balkans, the Caucasus, and Central Asia" (p. 146). "Al-Qaeda is therefore a euphemism for Western covert operations specializing in destabilization" (p. 155). After detailing the secret history of this strategic "destabilization" in Central Asia and the Balkans, as well as in North Africa, Ahmed then examines the official account of the "Al Qaeda hijackers" on 9/11, critiquing the evidence presented by the US government for the identities of the hijackers and their purported fundamentalist Islamism, and highlighting their prior ties to US covert operations and military training.
   
   In "September 11 as `Machiavellian State Terror'", David MacGregor, professor of sociology at King's University College, presents a theory of "Machiavellian state terrorism" (MST) as the basis of a leftist analysis of the events of 9/11. He defines MST as "terror/assassination performed for reasons different from the publicized ones; often initiated by persons or groups other than those suspected of the act; and ... secretly perpetrated by or on behalf of the violated state itself" (p. 184). On this basis he is able to provide a sorely-needed critique of the lame response to the 9/11 attacks by the established "Left" in the US, represented by Noam Chomsky and progressive organs like Z Magazine (and their many fellow-travelers), who accept the official story and view the attacks as "blowback" for US imperial policy. After presenting a detailed historical overview of recent acts of state terrorism in Europe (mostly sponsored by the covert arms of the US government) and Canada, MacGregor concludes that "The left embraces a distorted notion of political violence that sees it as an understandable response of the weak to provocations of the powerful. Yet ... acts of terror are vulnerable to manipulation, and far more likely to be a weapon of state rulers and their agents, than [of] the oppressed masses. As a legitimized protection racket, the state may be tempted to inflict harm secretly on its own citizens ... to achieve ... highly desired goals" (p. 209).
   
   In "Making History: the Compromised 9-11 Commission", Bryan Sacks, adjunct professor of philosophy at Drexel University, demonstrates in detail that the 9/11 Commission was both structurally and procedurally "compromised" from its inception, as required to guarantee a thorough whitewash of the US government's role in the 9/11 attacks. He surveys the evidence of severe "conflicts of interest" of principal members of the Commission, including its director Philip Zelikow, its vice-chair Lee Hamilton, commissioner Jamie Gorelick, and staffer Dietrich Snell. He then provides a useful overview of the suppression and obfuscation of evidence in the 9/11 Commission Report. He concludes that the Commission has produced a thoroughly false "history" of the events in order to establish and maintain ideological hegemony over all thought about them.
   
   In "Islamophobia and the "War on Terror: the Continuing Pretext for U.S. Imperial Conquest", Diana Ralph, associate professor of social work at Carleton University, provides a succinct and useful survey of the evidence for the long preparation by US planners of a battle against "terrorism" to provide a pretext to seize world oil supplies and, with them, "world control". Since these supplies lie largely in Muslim nations, "terrorism" has been equated with "Islamism". Key figures in this ideological move away from "Communism" as the enemy to "terrorism" have been Dick Cheney in the US and Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel.
   
   Two years have elapsed since the publication of the first edition, providing the opportunity for the authors of several of the articles to update them with new facts and analyses. "Part IV: Updates" (pp. 291-347) consists of new material and further reflections on their subjects by Zarembka, Kolar, Griffin, Jacobs and MacGregor. In addition, Kevin Ryan has provided a fine and gracefully written critique, "A Government Scientist Sees Physics that Doesn't Exist." It is a response to an extraordinarily weak series of articles purporting to explain the collapse of WTC 7 due to fire and damage by falling debris from the Twin Towers, by a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory employee, Manuel Garcia, which had appeared at the CounterPunch website, home to many irrational diatribes by "leftist" Alexander Cockburn against the very notion of criticism of the official story of 9/11.
   
   THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11 is an excellent book, which provides an in-depth examination of key aspects of the events and their context. At its new low price, and with its updates, the book is now a key resource for all seekers of the truth about 9/11.

3 comments about Architect of Global Jihad: The Life of Al Qaeda Strategist Abu Mus'ab Al-Suri.

1. In a fascinating tale of a fascinating individual this book delves deep into the soul of the Jihadist, learning about him, showing us his seminal work, which was 1,600 pages, and shedding lihgt on the man who theorized the global Jihad that threatens so many people today. This was not the Marx of Islamism or the Lenin. This was the Trotsky, the man who understood 'War Islamism' and how individualized Islamic cells of only a few men could spread havoc and take the war to the enemy on ground of the Islamists own choosing. Although Abu Mus'ab al-Suri, whose middle name was Sethmarriam, was not a latter day Sun Tzu or Clauswitz, her might have been. Alleged to have been killed in the snowy hills of the Pashtun, his wareabouts are actually unknown.
   
   A fascinating book about Islamist history, about the birth and making of the Islamist and the strategy of Islamism. He was truly an architect of the international terrorist revolution.
   
   Seth J. Frantzman



2. Required reading for anyone wanting to better understand the past organizations and efforts of the jihadists and an insight into possible future organizational structure for the terrorist networks. The translations of key sections of the "Global Islamic Resistance Call" of Al-Suri's 1,600 page book shows his well thought out, objective case for his idea of a global Islamic resistance design, or for that matter anyone wishing to cause chaos in today's world. You have to understand the enemy to defeat him because a leaderless resistance would be one of the longest, hardest battle this nation, or any others confronted with this threat, will have to fight. A fight that will take an unfailing determination and focus. A fight of generations to discredit the jihadist propaganda and let the true voices of the areas afflicted with this disease to be heard.



3. A well-written, finely researched book on a critical but otherwise unnoticed player in international terrorism. What is most interesting is Al-Suri's diverse history of terror cell membership and the resulting network of international links he maintained. This book is more than a biography. By reviewing Al-Suri's life, from his ideology, travel and marital choice, the book outlines a blueprint of "serious" terrorists that has been closely mirrored by many other hardcore jihadists in Al-Qa'ida and other groups. Most interesting is Al-Suri's shift from gun-toting combatant to ideological propagandist and his lasting influences. Though Bin Laden is "the face" of modern terrorism, this book leads the reader to question if the most dangerous players have yet to be identified.

1 comments about Defending the Homeland: Domestic Intelligence, Law Enforcement, and Security (Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice Series.).

1. Jonathan R. White's Defending the Homeland: Domestic Intelligence, Law Enforcement, and Security is the book I assign as the keystone text for a Law Enforcement Intelligence course. It is a `must read' because it correctly portrays intelligence as both art and science, deeply rooted in action-making tangible things happen, getting real things done-by reducing warfare to its simplest level and thereby limiting the negative effects of susceptibilities such as fog, chance, and friction. This volume makes sense of how the traditionally polar fields of law enforcement and intelligence can develop a symbiotic relationship for synergistic effect.
   
   Because it is one of the first sources for this argument, it serves as a measuring stick for both policy and operational analysis. It examines the concepts, uses, and limits of strategic intelligence in contrast to operational imperatives. Very little has been previously offered in law enforcement intelligence beyond rhetoric-which are sound as far as they go-such as, `intelligence is the key to the problem', or `the support of the population must be won'. Students and practitioners tasked with, or having previously experienced the responsibility of actually executing missions will appreciate this book the most.
   
   The essence of the book can clearly be defined as delineating the parameters of low intensity conflict and law enforcement; to deduce from them the principles of asymmetric warfare, and to outline the corresponding strategy and tactics.