5 comments about Dude, Where's My Country?.

1. When I first heard of Michael Moore it was from his "Bowling for Columbine" movie. I immediately took a biased dislike to him. Even though I tried to maintain an open mind on judging things. Now, as I look back I see my bias. As a teacher I want my students to learn and use critical thinking before making judgements.
   A student requested this book for refining their use of the English language. I kept my mind open and following what I preached said yes, and discovered a wonderful investigative journalist in Michael Moore.
   I made a 180 degree turn around when I realized that he took the time and effort to dig for information and present it to the public with a 'tongue in cheek' twist in what seemed to be a factual presentation. One that made the book entertaining and at the same time gave information that should make everyone take notice as to what is going on around us.
   He doesn't make judgements on the actions that President Bush takes but wants answers to the big question of "Why?". If Bush did nothing wrong, then he should not have a problem answering the questions that Moore asks. Of course, we all know that Bush will not answer any of these and if he does it will not be with a definitive answer, as most of Bush's responses are.
   Should we take Michael Moore seriously? Should we think of him as joke? Pick up this book and read it, seriously. Then make up your own mind, should our President have to respond to these questions and if so, what do you think his answers would be, and would they be true.
   Remember, truth is only what you honestly believe, even if it is right or wrong.
   Thank you Michael for opening my mind and making me reevaluate my critical thinking.



2. Look, this is the sort of book wjere you either believe the facts (yes, facts) put in front of you, or you play ostrich and convince yourself it's all lies. Moore, unlike someone like Coulter, however, can nack up his statements.
   But I want to address a particular reviewer: S. Peek, you need to read the book again. First, Moore never said Osama didn't plan 9/11. he said there was the POSSIBILITY he didn't, and that the Saudi government MIGHT have. He never called Osama innocent.
   
   Second, you says he doesn't substantiate anything he says, other than the footnotes in Chapter 1, was your copy missing the huge notes appendix in the back? He substantiated everything.
   
   Third, you said he gave "dubious" sources... hmmm... I never considered the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, New Yorker magazine, etc., not to mention several officail documents, as "dubious." Exactly what DOES define dubious for you?
   
   Fourth, he suggests Hanks and Oprah as possible presidents. We could do MUCH worse. In fact, we have been the last 8 years. You said we don't pick pur presidents/leaders based on whether they're nice people or celebrities. Even hear of Ronnie Reagan? Other leaders... Fred Thompson, Schwartzenegger, Sonny Bono, Clint Eastwood,Jesse Ventura, ... all voted into office without a shred of political experience....



3. Someday, it won't even take a smart person to write a history of the missteps, miscalculations and mendacities that led us into the wilderness of the Iraq War. Part of that history will be of the few -- the very few -- voices that spoke the truth early and often, ignoring the cacophony of governmental officials and their media sidekicks who ignored their consciences and trumpeted war as good for the country, if not their pocketbooks and ratings. Michael Moore will be prominent in this recovered history,
   
   "Dude Where is my Country?" shows Moore at his wildest and bestest -- asking hard questions about the 9/11 attacks and the Iraq War that few others were asking. This was in 2003, mind you! And doing his shtick with humor, sometimes bitter and brokenhearted. Moore's questions are sometimes a little off the mark, but worth asking, if only to be given a satisfactory explanation. For instance, he asks, how could Osama bin Laden, supposedly hiding in the hills of Afghanistan and in need of dialysis, manage to orchestrate a successful attack on a superpower half a world away? I personally think it's not all that farfetched, given the reportedly loose organizational structure of al Qaeda, but let's hear the experts answer this. But Moore also asks more troubling questions about the too-cozy relationship between the Bushes and the House of Saud, a most repressive dictatorship. For instance, did the 9/11 hijackers really learn enough on a few quickie turns on a flight simulators to pilot their craft into buildings 3 times out of 3 (the 4th jet deliberately crashing into a field in Shanksville, PA)? Or were the hijackers (the pilots at least) trained in someone's air force? Moore then goes on to dissect the lies leading to the Iraq war -- that Saddam had nukes, chemical weapons, etc. -- and the credulous acceptance that these lies had in the public and the media.
   
   Some of the material in this book eventually showed up in "Fahrenheit 911," Moore's famous movie about the attacks. Certain aspects of the movie that did not receive enough exposition received more here, notably the Unicom pipeline being built through Afghanistan to bring natural gas to a plant being built by Enron, of all firms. Money talk, patriotism walks.
   
   Mike Moore is an extraordinary human being and a great American. He has been demonized by the right and marginalized by the MSM. Yet he still comes out swinging -- whether out of a surplus of ego, a thirst for justice or genuine compassion for ordinary people, I don't care. In 2003, he was practically the only person calling for government and media scrutiny and accountability -- one of the only people who was neither a conner nor conned. "Dude, Where's My Country?" will stand as a testament that in the early years of the new century, Americans actively chose to be gulled into two treasury-draining wars by leaders whose wisdom was as small as their arrogance and greed were large. Michael Moore is the Cassandra of our times. But his reputation can only increase as more and more of us accept the truths he has so genially been laying before us for years.
   
   (D. David Morin does an OK job narrating, but it would have been excellent to hear Michael read his own material)



4. I like the way the information is presented and how you can realize that this guy actually cares what he is writting. Recomend the book



5. Knowing only of Michael Moore from his documentaries I was curious of whether or not his books were as direct, honest, and confronting as his movies. I was not disappointed. The book was easy-read, funny and thorough, and Moore has a entertaining way of using metaphors in his writing. I did, at a few occasions, notice that Moores democratic views is sometimes so strong that it blinds him from seeing things from different angels, but in total it was a very good book in which I took great pleasure reading.

5 comments about Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq.

1. In "Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq," coauthors Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber take a critical look at a very important subject. The authors cover a number of intriguing facets of both the war and its background. They analyze the U.S. "propaganda blitz" to improve the U.S.'s image in the Muslim world-a strategy they judge an "abject failure." They also look at some of the individuals and organizations that played roles in the leadup to war-among them Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress.
   
   Rampton and Stauber accuse the Bush administration of many distortions in its attempt to "sell" the war as if it were a product. One of the book's most interesting sections is the authors' deconstruction of the Bush administration's wartime catchphrases: "axis of evil," "coalition of the willing," "shock and awe," etc. They critique not only the U.S. government, but also the Saudi regime.
   
   The book also looks critically at the media's role in the war. The authors accuse the "right wing media echo chamber" of promoting a culture of fear and intimidation. Among the figures whose work they question are Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, and Ollie North. Particularly intriguing is the authors' look at differences in U.S. and Arab TV coverage of the war.
   
   I should note that I am an Army Reserve officer who has done a tour (2003) in Afghanistan and is currently serving in Iraq, and that I am firmly committed to carrying out my mission. I was not bothered or offended by this book. I believe that the authors are doing a service in challenging Americans to be more careful and critical consumers of information. This book dares its readers to analyze and decode the messages that they receive from the government, the media, and the advertising industry; it also suggests that we need to know and learn from history. I recommend this book to readers regardless of their political persuasion.



2. The book "Weapons of Mass Deception, the Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq," written by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber generally deals with the United States' current conflict in Iraq. However, it does not deal with the strategic side of the conflict itself but rather the steps taken to get there. This text focuses primarily on the supposed false information that President Bush and his administration provided the American public in order to gain their support. Rampton and Stauber deal with the psychological aspects that come with preparing a nations people for war.
   Rampton and Stauber set out to make a contribution to their field by expressing their points of view in this particular text. The fundamental point that both authors set out to make is that the war in Iraq is a battle that is being fought unnecessarily, based on false pretenses. President Bush blatantly lied to a nation in order to better serve his own needs while asking thousands of men and women to give their lives in the process. Both authors make it their business to make clear the fraudulent steps that President Bush and his administration took in an effort to coerce a nation into believing that going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do. Furthermore, it is Rampton and Stauber's goal that after reading their work, American citizens will analyze carefully and be more skeptical of the different types of media that they come into contact with.
   There are several areas covered in this text regarding the war in Iraq and the deceptive measures employed by President Bush while doing so. In fact, Rampton and Stauber claim that Bush was involved with the invasion of Iraq even before he was elected into office. Bush's key officials advocated the invasion all along but opted to wait until September 2002 to inform the public, through what the White House expressed as a product launch. This is simply the Bush administrations attempt at selling the war in Iraq to the American public through a well thought out public relations operation. The White House representatives apparently used propaganda along the lines of misinformation and constant replication in order to create the false notion that Iraq was behind the September 11th terrorist attacks on the United States. Additionally, there were allegedly forged documents which fabricate the claim that Iraq possessed vast supplies of destructive weapons. Apparently, Bush's public relations firm facilitated an opposition group known as the Iraqi National Congress, which contributed largely to the decision to go to war. While these lies were taking place, the American news media was entirely occupied with the propaganda being provided and continuously kept repeating White House communications.
   "Weapons of Mass Deception, the Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq" is put together by authors Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber. Both men work for the Center for Media and Democracy; this is a non-profit association that Stauber himself founded in 1993 in an effort to observe and expose deceptive public relations campaigns and other assorted propaganda distributed by corporations and governments. John Stauber is a longtime activist who has worked in the field of public interest, consumer, family farm, environmental and community organizations at the local, state, and national levels. Co-author Sheldon Rampton is a graduate of Princeton University and has worked as a newspaper reporter, activist, and author. Rampton and Stauber are both clearly opposed to the work that the Bush administration has done while in office. In fact, based on the work that they have done with this text as well as past work, both men appear to be against any type of governmental or public relations group that misinforms the public on any issue. Rampton and Stauber present a strong argument throughout their book, supporting their points of view with documented facts. In addition, both authors remain true to their feelings and points of view in an uncompromising fashion; perhaps this is the most concrete element to their text. The only flaw, if any present in this book is that both men are partially biased because of their dislike for President Bush. It is likely that a supporter of President Bush would not be so critical of the tactics he has used in recent years.
   This text seems to be quite useful and a positive addition to work in its field. It offers readers and consumers an alternative source of information that is able to rival the media. In addition, to it being an alternative source of information, it is written by well educated and experienced men who support their adamant views with concretely documented facts. Therefore, this text is not merely two liberal men running their mouths about issues they are not well versed in, but a brilliantly put together political argument. Lastly and perhaps most importantly, Rampton and Stauber attempt to relay an important message to the public; that they should never settle and accept information that the media and government give to them. There is always the right to question the government and related associations when the public is being misinformed.



3. When factual evidence did not reveal that Saddam Hussein had "Weapons of Mass Destruction" the Bush administration simply hired the country's best media consultants to engineer support for the war: anybody who was thus questioning the administration found themselves labeled as contributing to the terrorist threat. Because reality did not give them what they wanted, the White House fabricated data.
   
   This book, written by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton is not one of the reccent anti-Iraq war books, but it lays out the opposition to this policy in basic bare-bones langue. As such, this book is a good read for people who are not neccessarily policy wonks, but want the truth in an America of lies.
   
   It is convienient that one of the loudest internal anti-Saddam groups in Iraq, the Iraqi National Congress, had ties to the American Pentagon. If something like that arrangement were to happen to our country, we would be screaming bloody murder. But, because Bush had convinced the public we needed to stop 'the terrorists' wherever they were, we did not ask critical questions about the opposition sources origin and their own motives.
   
   Likewise, the same profession which once had helped to expose Watergate and FBI abuses against new left activists turned into the official White House parrot. Reporters who allegedly knew much better stopped asking critical questions about the Bush administration's official policy. Very little has publically been made of the glaring contradictions between Bush's infamous 'mission accomplished' aircraft carrier landing and our continued presence in Iraq---ironically with no formal end to the 'mission' in sight.
   
   Why were we going to war with Iraq? What information prompted this decision? Who collected this information? If Saddam really was such a threat to international security, why weren't the other nations (especially his neighbors) who mourned with us over 9/11 agreeing with our plans?
   
   Consequently, the American people had no idea of what they were really supporting. We were only told that dissent against the country was unpatriotic and that we needed to support whatever this president did in Iraq.
   
   Compounding that problem, the administration went into Iraq with a distinctly western mindset. Not only did/and is still preventing Americans from being taken seriously, but it breeds terrorists who point to the 'provisional government'...etc as evidence that America only had wanted to colonize Iraq for it's own material benefit. The people working for the White House thought they were good, but they also forgot that the Iraqis and the Arab world needed to be sold on this policy to (ironically) avoid generating terrorists.
   
   Because the authors are pre-disposed to disagree with President Bush on other issues, this book might not have a wider audience when compared with the growing number of titles of people who were neutral or even previously supportive of the administration's Iraq policy. If Iraq really does turn into another Vietnam however, I am willing to bet that this book will suddenly find a larger audience alongside the more reccently published works.



4. One of the best excerpts from this book is Rumsfeld being confronted by a journalist about his visit to Iraq, denying it and then shown a videotape from the CNN archives. This is a good book to read to get away from the Bush spin of things and see things a little clearer.



5. Read this book in conjunction with American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century by Kevin Phillips to get the full context of how we were hoodwinked into the Iraq War and how the Bush Administration lives for getting us to give up our liberty for some alleged safety.

No comments about The McGraw-Hill Homeland Security Handbook.

5 comments about The Cell: Inside the 9/11 Plot and Why the FBI and CIA Failed to Stop It.

1. The authors of "The Cell" provide the reader with a step-by-step on how the terrorist's cells evolved and developed. The terrorist cells had its beginnings not in Pakistan or Iran but in the United States of America in the heart of the city of New York!
   
   The authors write in detail about the catastrophe of the World Trade Center on September 26, 1993. They provide inside information on the worst tragedy of September 11, 2001. The authors show how all could have been averted if it had not been for the sleeping giants, the FBI, NYPD, JTTF (Joint Terrorism Task Force) and the CIA. Not only were those powerful agencies asleep, but they were, in every way, trying to be the number one and all-powerful individual agency. This was mistakenly done by not sharing important and critical information. Moreover, the different agencies failed to act on the clandestine information, each one had about the Muslim immigrants from Pakistan. The agencies knew ahead of time a large group of immigrant Muslims were busy gathering bomb-making materials and being trained in American soil to bring the twin towers down and kill as many American people as well.
   
   I compare the way the authors of "The Cell" present the reader the story much like paint-by-number's painting. Once the reader finishes painting all the numbered pieces the reader wind up with an extremely disturbing painting of how the terrorists managed to accomplish doing the inconceivable in the heart of America.
   
   As American's we continue to believe in the fallacy that we are a giant that cannot be touched. We see ourselves as a giant elephant and the terrorist as a gnat buzzing on our giant elephants' ear. We fail to give that gnat more attention and instead gently try to swat it off our ear.
   
   The reader might have seen the incidents of the World Trade Center tragedy on TV. The reader might have witnessed the pulverizing of the twin towers on 9/11 on TV is well, but the authors of "The Cell" provide the inside story never seen and or witnessed by the public at large, and they paint the catastrophically numbered slots in a factual, but disturbing way.
   
   "The Cell" is necessary read for everyone.



2. This is a great read, perhaps written too much from the FBI side of the house but nonetheless at the top of the list.
   
   It is tough to read the book while knowing what would happen on 9-11. Monday morning quarterbacking always looks brilliant. However, the authors document the flaws at the FBI, CIA national leadership and other agencies, plus the many times that sound instincts were overruled by bureaucratic blunders and second guessing. Colin Powell in his excellent brief on leadership (prepared as the storm gathered) notes that both military and corporate leadership should start with the assumption that the people in the field know more about reality than headquarters staff.
   
   The effectiveness of young, results oriented organizations too often matures into process oriented organizations where results are subordinate to process, career advancement and political correctness. One small example was the CIA leadership refusing authorization for a low risk intelligence field operation, but offering to send a 4 person team to the field office to provide sexual harassment training, to a 2 man field office deep in the Muslim world.
   
   The authors note the seemingly endless stream of lost opportunities to break or at least slow the chain, some incredibly lucky events such as the fire that lead Philippine authorities to the master bomb maker. Warriors and coaches emphasize that winners make their own good luck. As a nation we did a great job of making bad luck with tragic results.
   
   There are heroes, many of them and the authors take the reader into the daily struggle as they attempt to prevent what would become 9-11 but which might have ended with an even more deadly attack.
   
   This would have been an easy 5 stars were it not for some troubling issues. The first is information available to both our leadership and the press in the decade leading up to 9-11 clearly showed that to be a serious threat. When my phone rang shortly after 6 am (Pacific Time) on 9-11, the first words I heard were, "You were right" from a very distraught and close friend. The tragedy was not that we had no information; but rather that so many public warnings over the prior 12 years had been ignored by both the press and our top leadership.
   
   In the late 80's the revised "Great Reckoning" devoted a substantial portion of the book to the rise of militant Muslim fundamentalists, the challenges of asymmetrical warfare with stateless groups whose weapons were made vastly more deadly by the expansion of technology. In the following years the terrorists had struck every continent with the exception of Antarctica. There was within much of the military leadership the shared, unclassified opinion, that the "big one was coming." And finally, as is so often the case, fiction writers like Tom Clancey understood and wrote about the potential of using airliners as weapons.
   
   The authors also note the debilitating impact of restrictions and bureaucratic roadblocks placed on the CIA's use of sources. They fail to note that the restrictions and procedures helped Ames to compromise virtually every US asset in the USSR. The rules and procedures increased the threat to those who would help us and discouraged our agents from recruiting sources.
   The authors also gloss over the damage done by Adm Turner who pushed the CIA away from human sources and effective action. They do note the sign over one CIA officer's desk which summarized the Turner/Carter CIA - Big operations, big problems - Little operations, little problems - No operations, no problems. Boldness succumbed to bureaucracy and risk aversion.
   
   The authors note that Clinton did not meet with the CIA Director for years, but offer the comment that he read the reports. However, in the world of very sensitive information, leaked documents and Freedom of Information requests there is no substitute for personal briefings. If the FBI, DOJ and CIA were not working together as a team it is a reflection of both the problems within the organizations and the leadership above.
   
   With these issues noted the book is highly recommended. Also recommended is I.C. Smith's "Inside" which presents another view of many of the same issues and makes a great companion.



3. Excellent non partisan narrative that takes you from an assasination plot in 1990 through the events of 9/11 and shows you how to connect the dots between the numerous events in between.
   
   Many in our law enforcement and government were aware of the connections but were unable to convince the bureaucracy to take action. Decades of relative peace changed the makeup of the organizations tasked to protect us. Their focus shifted from those who would harm us to those who would challenge their budgets and power.
   
   Essential reading to understand how large organizations can miss the obvious. A great primer on Osama and the Islamist threat.



4. This is a must read if you want to come out of the "media 20 second sound bites!"
   
   Factual information about the beginnings of radical Islamic terrorism and how it lead to 9/11.
   
   Well writen, interesting, a page burner. Highly recommended.



5. The author proves his point that 911 was preventable,at least to my satisfaction,and this book is free of any conspiracy theories or coverups on the part of the US government.It is critical of both Clinton and Bush administrations. If lack of motivation,stagnation,careerism,outdated outlooks, however could be seen as a conspiracy then the author has one.According to my read,the US Intelligence agecies responsible for protecting us,just weren't doing their job and instead were looking for their retirement pensions which goes along with "not rocking the boat".Alot of countries had already developed terrorist informant networks but the US had hardly anyone that could even speak Arabic.Noone wanted to take the risk of getting "bad information",so they settled for no information.According to the book the US was too reliant on electronic intelligence,newspapers,(etc.etc.)and maintained an isolationist outlook in regard to info on terrorist activity.The book suggests our outlook was,"Hey let's make alot of money,why should anyone want to hurt us?Let's not be paranoid,showing paranoia just brings on more terrorism."
   The author's analyze our response to previous red flag terrorist attacks on the US;the Kahane assasination,the Trade Center garage bomb,numerous embassy bombings,the Cole incident.Our reactions were cold,impersonal and worst of all Impotent.(A few cruise missiles at targets thousands of miles away and no way to tell if they even hit their targets).The 911 conspirators themselves come off in the book as young and foolish brainwashed fanatics on the level of the Manson gang.
   The book also gives alot of information on the terrorist cell and how it works. After reading this if you see a gathering of 5 or six young Muslim males you'll have to wonder if it's a cell but (You'd better keep your thoughts to yourself!!!),unless you see them in a Ryder truck with large containers?The authors' point out how the American fear of being "politically incorrect" led our intelligence community to overlook the most obvious "red emboldened letters" written by the terrorists themselves.Also in the book there are refences to links between the Black Muslim community and the terrorists that I was unaware of.The rise of these cells according to the book came about as the result of the US policy in Afghanistan when it armed the Mujahadeen,"the enemy of my enemy is my friend"(Even if they hate my guts to the core).The Afghan guerillas used their US training on the US and that's the core of the book.This book pesents these terrorists as "dumb and dumber" types,literally flying all over America looking for new targets to destroy with middle east oil wealth acting as Santa Claus.If they had their way next year they'd fill our stocking s with Anthrax?
   A good book to go along with these is the Bodansky books in which the author gives a good overview of middle-east terrorist ties to Arab governments.The pencil pushers who secretly do some "creative accounting" unbeknownst to their own governments and maybe send some loot to a shaky refugee center (run by Alqueda sympathysers)?Anyway this book is a great read for any crime buff.My review is getting longer than the book itself.

No comments about Striking Terror: America's New War.

3 comments about Modern Insurgencies and Counter-Insurgencies: Guerrillas and Their Opponents Since 1750 (Warfare and History).

1. The author writes an very interesting book, sometimes it races along and at other times it becomes tedious. The author also offers many quotes and what appears to be tons of background, supportive and historical evidence to support his claims; Yet the author gives absolutely no footnotes or endnotes that one might validate or verify his sources. I was able to correctly identify many of his sources, but an over reliance on one's memory is not a useful academic tool. If one is seeking a credible research source, I can not honestly recommend this book, strictly on the basis that an indiviudal can not substantiate primary and or secondary sources as the author has used them.
   
   The author does offer a substantial recommended reading list at the end of each chapter, but does not provide the standard alphabetically listed bibliography. Its tedious to search the reading list because of the way he has structured it.

   The chapters are well organized and flow well through history from approximately the 1750's to roughly 2000. Although the book would benefit the novice as a "starter" in terms of the amount of historical information that the author provides; the scholar or researcher will not be able to validate or verify the veracity of the Authors quotes, examples or dates.

   All in All I would rate this book 3 stars for its readability. I would rate it 4 stars for its contribution to the debate on modern insurgency/counter-insurgency and I will rate it at zero stars for its usefulness to research, simply because it has no endnotes or footnotes. In comparison with other books I would suggest that Robert B Asprey's updated Volume I, War in the Shadow's, long considered the academic baseline on the guerrilla in history is far superior.




2. Mr. Beckett's coverage of the development of insurgency movements from the time of Napolean to recent years is a daunting goal. He covered a great deal of material and seemed to cover a lot of material in not nearly enough detail for the sake of mentioning every guerrilla movement imaginable while covering only a few in detail. In fairness, I believe his intent was to track major shifts in insurgency philosophies or counter-insurgency doctrines. But one could hardly help getting the feeling of being dragged on a guided tour where the tour guide would let you linger only at the sights he wants you to see while mentioning the others only in passing quickly by. It is a noble task but could have been shorter by avoiding the side stories or longer by providing more details on the ones mentioned. It seems too much for 250 pages to hold. Still, overall, it was a good read and gives plenty of direction for those wishing to discover some hidden corner of insurgency others might have left unnoticed. Read Mr. Beckett's Modern Insurgencies to get your bearings then head out in one of the many directions he points for a specialty that suits your interests.



3. Beckett's volume is a veritable goldmine of counterinsurgency arcana. Unfortunately, its flaws are apparent, and other reviewers have pointed to them already: Lack of footnotes and a seriously fragmentary narrative hamper the overall usefulness of this treatment. So, f you want to know your Lansdale from your Abrams, go elsewhere. If it's of interest to know that the SAS' torture practices were honed in Aden, and then imported to Northern Ireland, then this is a book you'll want to have on your shelf. Treat it like a pocket encyclopedia -- skip the table of contents and dig in via the index.

5 comments about Why We Want to Kill You: The Jihadist Mindset and How to Defeat It.

1. Finally, someone from the inside has been willing to share the truth in spite of death threats, including from his own family. I believe this is a book that everyone outside Islam should read, especially our elected officials that only want to talk peace or throw money at the problem. The war on terror is exactly like Mr. Shoebat listed it. This is a war against a form of Socialism that is to the extreme. I give him great credit, not only to his faith but to his courage in writing this book.



2. Human civilization has not always had a smooth path. We've had our share of natural disasters and self-inflicted wounds. As recently as the fifth century, we had a Dark Ages in Europe, in which reason was virtually repudiated in favor of tyranny. There was a threat of a repeat of that in the 1930s and 1940s in Europe. And there may be a similar threat at present.
   
   Walid Shoebat, a former terrorist, shows, in this somewhat scary book, how serious the problem is. Quite a few people are being trained as destroyers of society. And if they succeed, that will be bad for virtually everyone.
   
   What do the Islamic fundamentalists say? Well, they say whatever they please. And they come up with all sorts of demonizing propaganda against Western society. But to me, it all reads pretty much like a repeat of the refrain "we're going to slice and dice you." No, that's not a quote from Shoebat's book. But that's my summary of how I read Islamist propaganda. I'm a Pagan, not a Muslim, so that puts me on the wrong side of the slicing and dicing. But there really is no right side of that.
   
   How does one reply to the Islamists? Well, there are plenty of ways. One can come up with a reasoned rebuttal. Or one can simply describe reality and warn that what goes around can come around. Or one can even answer insults with insults. But none of it does much good. We all need to value truth more in order to combat this threat to society. Right now, there's plenty of pressure on many Muslims to support the Islamists, and the main question seems to be how much support to give them. I think this book shows that we need to draw the line at demonizing untruths. I think agreeing with such lies, as a matter of course, as a matter of loyalty, as a matter of principle, as a matter of laziness, as a way to avoid trouble, whatever, is a giant leap over the line. That's what leads to the recruitment of terrorists, and we see the pattern of behavior described in detail in this book.
   
   Shoebat makes a few specific points that I especially like. One of them deals with the "right of return." Arabs, Jews, and others lost their homes in the 1940s. What ought to be done about it? I basically agree with Shoebat's solution: nothing. No one should have a "right of return" to them. Not Arabs to the Levant and Israel, not Jews to Europe, Africa, Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere, not Germans to Poland and the Czech Republic, not anyone. I would add that very few people who lost their homes in the 1940s are still alive. Oh, sure, people who lived in those homes are still alive. But most of those were kids, not owners. These kids never owned the homes, they never developed them, they never paid property taxes on them, and they may not ever have been the actual heirs to them.
   
   Shoebat also discusses "reversalism," which is just one more way in which pro-tyranny thugs use words as weapons rather than as tools of communication. This is a way of simply making things up as one goes along, and it generally involves a fair amount of projection. Is one a big fan of the National Socialists? Then why not call the Jews National Socialists? Why not call liberation "occupation," why not call sorrow "joy," why not call victims "terrorists," and why not call the conspirators to terror "victims?" And we see plenty of examples of this process.
   
   Is Islamist terror a problem for Muslims in general? You bet it is, just as National Socialism was a problem for Germans in general. And it is, of course, a problem for non-Muslims, just as National Socialism was a problem for non-Germans. One example Shoebat gives is a poll of Indonesian Muslims (Muslims are a big majority in Indonesia). "Sixteen percent of Indonesian Muslims (almost thirty million people) supported bombings, while a further twenty-five percent declined to offer an opinion." That impressed me: one would think that folks would know that suicide bombings are not doing anyone much good and that what goes around can come around. Shoebat says that a more recent survey showed that only ten per cent supported these bombings, but that is still eighteen million people. That's a problem for society. As Shoebat explains, that same survey showed that sixty-five percent of Indonesia's Muslims "do not believe that the September 11 attacks on the United States were carried out by Arabs!" That is a very big problem as far as I am concerned. This is a key untruth, and if it stands, I think it helps put civilization at serious risk.
   
   What's the goal of the attacks on Israel? A new Arab state? No. As Shoebat tells us, it is the prosecution of jihad against the West. And what do some Western academics have to say about all this? Shoebat does mention that there is a problem here, and he quotes a few, including a couple who are at Columbia University. Yes, Columbia has a problem, but there are some other universities that probably ought make a more serious attempt to enforce academic standards.
   
   What is to be done about the threats posed by radical Islam? Shoebat has some ideas, including removing the leaders and dismantling hate-filled mosques. He also favors presenting truth in the media and in academia.
   
   I highly recommend this book.



3. Mr. Shoebat describes a frightening "death cult" that has emerged from Islam. A nice analogy I use is that the Jihadis are to Islam as the Inquisitors were to Christianity. There are ways to interpret religious texts in such a way to justify great cruelty in the service of human lust for power. Shoebat describes this phenomenon in Islam. What is scary is that most Islam in the Middle East is under the sway of these Jihadis, either to preserve the political order where loyalty and connections trump merit, or as a reaction to the speed of change in a modernizing world. Shoebat has converted to Christianity, so has a convert's zeal in seeing the flaws of his previous belief system. However, he details the abuse of women and non-Moslems, and the demonization of all who do not follow the path of whichever charismatic leader has killed his way to the top of the heap. To paraphrase him, evangelical Christians annoy you by wanting to change your head. Islamists want to cut off your head. There are other more scholarly works about the dysfunction in Islam, but Shoebat provides a raw insider's view that makes this danger very clear.



4. This book makes for interesting reading. Anyone who wants to know why there is so much dissension between muslims and other relighons should read this book. It provides insight into their beliefs, the war and many other issues.



5. One day at the school we were talking about different cultures and one of them was about the muslims. This book has been very helpful to me because it talks about reality. When I started to read I said oh common is this the book for which I payed ?? dollars, I say this because i don't remember how much I payed but when I started getting deep into it i realized that I had made a good investment. It's really helpful.
   
   For anyone that loves to know another cultures this is the right book to start to know the muslims and why they do all of this. You'll find out

5 comments about Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9/11.

1. I can't say enough good things about Barrie Zwicker's book. It is filled with wisdom pieces throughout. Barrie takes on the challenge of why people aren't accepting that 9/11 was an inside job and even devotes a whole chapter to a former hero of his, Noam Chomsky, selling out. I might also add Amy Goodman's name to that list. I couldn't put the book down. After reading 150 pages in my first sitting, I was compelled to write to Barrie letting him know how much I appreciated his book. Upon further reading I was not disappointed. That is an understatement for this very important book.



2. Almost everybody has seen the headlines in the check-out lines and had a chuckle. We all know there are those who take this stuff seriously. The same can be said of the 911 "conspiracy". Some folks pay absolutely no attention to the various and many investigations that have disproved 99% of all the bogus claims but go orgasmic over the latest Youtube video by Joe Blow claiming he has the ultimate 911 truth. If you don't believe my conspiracy theory you are part of the plot - the perfect defense mechanism. I try to point out that despite universal claims of inside knowledge and the real "truth", the stories contradict each other in almost every detail. For example, the hijackers cannot be (1) alive & well, (2) non-existent, (3) murdered, (4) Mossad agents, (5) al Qaeda agents or (6) under remote mind control by the CIA.
   
   Barrie Zwicker is described as a Canadian alternative writer and a left wing political activist (Wiki). Those phrases should set off warning bells as to his bias before we start. That is not to say that political leanings are always a factor - the liberal Skeptic Magazine came up with the same conclusions as the conseravite Popular Mechanics and the neutral Engineers of America and, for that matter, the 911 commission. Physical evidence is no longer used in the conspiracy since they were quite easy to disprove. A political conspiracy is easier to trot since it is entirely subjective, based on a hodge podge of overheard snatches of conversation, internet chatter and bizarre tales that almost always have a simple explanation, i.e. "pull" down WTC7 meant "pull" the men from the bldg but of course it was taken out of context and transformed into one of the most-quoted pieces of "evidence" around. Zweiker plays it safe - making several proposals that if proved would leave no doubt that indeed it was a conspiracy.
   
   The fallacy of that approach is the same as its construction - its utter subjectivity. If I prove 10 but disprove 5 is it conspiracy? If I can't prove any but disprove one, does it fall apart? He carefully does not make the error of others and try for exactness. He asserts that the media were part of the "plot" by repeating erroneous stories, relying on unknown sources and in general, supporting the series of events proved by investigations. Someone has calculated the thousands it would take to pull off something of this magnitude and yet not a single soul has come forward with a confession...strange in this day of the confessional.
   
   People are now noticing how other conspiracies are intertwining and becoming part of the mythology. These "odd? ideas are standard fare for the conspiracy addict but not the general public - Jewish bankers (Anti-Semites are drawn to such crap), New World Order, Knights Templar, the Illuminati, Big Oil, CIA remote mind control, the Vatican, aliens... Some sites now headline the catchy phrase - "No Planes, No Holocaust" - further damaging the dwindling credibility of the "movement". The success of this movement speaks volumes about our inability to think critically about problems. How much easier it is to imagine dark cabals of whispers and payoffs than the horrific truth. It is an exercise in nonsense, irrationality, political ideology and wish fulfillment for big kids. The results, however, are as tragic as any conspiracy buff could imagine. The "Patriot Act", "Homeland Security", the war in Iraq, the loss of liberties agreed to by both parties, the never ending war and surveillance...those are outcomes of 9-11 and do not even require a dark, secret plot as an explanation.



3. After reading this book, I just wanted to laugh and the leaps people can make and others will believe.



4. Following in the tradition of David Ray Griffin's sci-fi series of 911 conspiracy books, and the three stooges Loose Change videos, Barrie Zwicker offers a compendium of theirs and other rabid 911 conspiracy cottage industry exploiters easily refuted claims.
   
   Watching the behavior of the "truth" brigade reveals a fascinating phenomenon commonly known as the "Reverse David Brock Syndrome." Once David Brock was the scourge of the left when he championed Justice Thomas and slimmed Anita Hill. But Brock, the creator of Media Matters, currently enjoys the undying gratitude and blind allegiance of Liberals for his complete transformation into a Hillary Clinton crusader.
   
   Imagine the ultra Liberal/Socialist Noam Chomsky, one of the treasured darlings of the anti American set, being dissed by Zwicker for not embracing the Bush/Israel, and now American media, conspiracy theory. Who is next on Zwicker's excommunication list? Howard Zinn? Keith Olbermann? Rosie O'Donnell? Charlie Sheen? Possibly even The Boss?
   
   The idea of not only the American media being in on 911, but the British media as well, is a bizarre claim. Considering the "truthers" favorite piece of evidence of the 911 Bush/Israel conspiracy that the BBC reported the collapse of WTC 7, some 20-30 minutes prior to its collapse, would indicate that confiding with the media to help you initiate a massive conspiracy is probably not the swiftest idea. Naturally, when the BBC renounced this false story, the "truthers" claimed they were pressured into retracting the story. But here is the BBC reply:
   
   "We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had."
   
   Had Zwicker never heard of the 1999 Payne Stewart incident where his Learjet Model 35 flew for two hours, without any response to FAA controllers, before F-16's intercepted the jet? I wonder what trumped up maneuvers the government had diverted NORAD with when Stewart's jet was wandering the skies over the U.S.?
   
   But where in any of these cottage industry 911 conspiracy books and videos do these bastions of truth and enlightenment ever discuss Sandy Burger's stealing and shredding of stolen 911 documents from the National Archives? I know that the conspiratorial minded loved Waco and Ruby Ridge during the Clinton Administration, but does Clinton get a pass on 911? Maybe it is because his wife is close to getting the Executive Office that the "truthers" excuse Bill's complicity in 911.
   
   Just as Geraldo was confronted with the embarrassment of no riches in Al Capne's vault, so to is the inevitable fate of Zwicker and company when the "truthers" realize their Emperor is wearing his birthday suit.
   
   
   
   



5. I had forgotten what a treasure trove of information Barry Zwicker's "Towers of Deception" is. Zwicker is outraged that the US Government (Invisible Government, I beleive is his term) would have the audacity to execute the 9/11 attacks, but he calmly and methodically sets out to educate his readers on exactly what a "false flag" attack is, why governments execute them, and how they are then covered up. During one part of the book, Mr. Zwicker marches through history, giving a brief synopsis on several such false flag events, beginning with provocation of the Mexican-American War in 1846 and ending with the London bombings in 2005. Always thorough, always easy to follow, Mr. Zwicker is an asset to Constitutional Republics everywhere. In addition to the facts, he gives priceless quotes and short case studies of key personalities throughout the book. And NO book on media is complete without discussing George Orwell's DOUBLETHINK and putting it in context as Mr. Zwicker does. If you are just now beginning to see the truth about the crimes of the Bush administration, owing to Scott McClellan's book and perhaps Jessie Ventura's comments, then you will enjoy the scholarship and diligence of Barry Zwicker's "Towers of Deception".

2 comments about Fundamentalism: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions).

1. This is such an excellent little book, I have to say that it's probably the best book I've read in the last couple of years. Although fundamentalism is a product of Protestant Christianity, Ruthven takes you through examples in Islamic, Jewish, Hindu and even Buddhist fundamentalisms. There are explanations on what conditions enable the rise of religious fundamentalism and what tempers it. The book introduces issues affecting fundamentalism such as: identity, modernity, traditionalism and how religious fundamentalism is intended as a backstop against modernity, yet is ironically made more secular in the process. The author mainly focuses on examples of international political-religious conflicts as a way to explain fundamentalism's connection to politics. In addition, Ruthven explores the role of women in societies influenced by fundamentalism. This is an amazing and wonderful book which is incredibly well-written and extremely timely. I highly recommend it and I'm looking forward to reading more from this series and from Malise Ruthven.



2. Don't be deceived by how short this book is. It is an intellectual powerhouse that cleverly presents the major developments and nuances of fundamentalism in its varied religious, political and social forms. Author Malise Ruthven is an exceptional guide on this semantic, religious and social journey as he delves into uncharted territories that a casual reader would never even begin to think are related to this complex subject. In this provocative book, Ruthven draws amazing links among conceptual beliefs and modern issues, including globalism, feminism, nationalism, modernism and politics. Given how well this little gem sustains its high level of intelligent investigation, getAbstract recommends it to readers intrigued by the subject. Even if you know what the newspapers say about fundamentalism, you will learn something here.

5 comments about Saving the Americas: The Dangerous Decline of Latin America and What The U.S. Must Do.

1. I was excited that a new book by Oppeheimer was to be released and was probably the first person to order a copy prior to it being released....it turned-out to be a translation into English of his OLD 2005 book Cuentos Chinos....I think it is not fair to confuse consumers by changing the tittle so dramatically....Qué pasó Señor Oppenheimer????



2. Saving the Americas: The Dangerous Decline of Latin America and What The U.S. Must Do
   Good commentary on many problems in Latin America with pointed suggestions as to actions the US can take to help the LA Region, as well as ourselves.
   Good insight into Latin American politics



3. I first read this in Spanish and am now reading it in English. It is a crucial book for U.S. readers to have and to help them know about the issues facing the U.S. in Latin America. --Kenneth D. MacHarg, author, From Rio to the Rio Grande, Challenges and Opportunities in Latin America From Rio to the Rio Grande: Challenges and Opportunities in Latin America



4. This is the best book on Latin American affairs I have read in a long time. That's because instead of simply looking at the region, like most authors do, Oppenheimer compares Latin America's development with that of Asia, Eastern Europe and even Africa. I wish more authors would do this kind of comparative work, because it shows how Latin America, despite growing at 5 percent rates a year, is falling behind the rest of the developing world.And on top of it, it's a very entertaining book!



5. This book is a revolution in the making, a quo vidas, or 'E Tu Brute' to the Latin American states demanding, J'Accuse like, why they are failing and how they deserve to suceed on the world stage. Latin America is one of the great cultures of the world, with a diverse and brilliant history and yet, oddly, it is one a continent that is considered a sort of backyard, a place where nothing matter and little happens. Why is this? How can this be reversed. The only thing one hears about Latin America are complaints from tin pot dictators like Chavez when they show up at international gatherings and get in shouting matches with the United States or Spanish Royalty. But what of the great economies of Latin America, what of the potential it has to teach the world?
   
   A fascinating book that deserves to be read and re-read. A translation from the Spanish, it is a must buy.
   
   Seth J. Frantzman