2 comments about Hold Everything Dear: Dispatches on Survival and Resistance.

1. I love reading John Berger. He is an original thinker.
   I don't always agree with his point of view but I love to read it.
   This book was very moving at times but also very enigmatic. I think
   that Mr. Berger is such a sensitive man that art criticism offers a safer space,
   than political discourse,to provide a more succinct point of view.
   I felt when reading his book the human tragedy that is going on
   now in the middle east is so hard to believe even when one is a witness to it.



2. One of the wisest voices of our time, John Berger, has pieced together 17 thoughts or, 'dispatches'(with its military connotations) about the post 9/11 environment which we now, all share. For most of his long life, Berger has sided with the powerless and dispossessed, even taking the step of quitting a high profile career in London, where he seemed to be at the cutting edge of art criticism with his ground-breaking,'Ways of Seeing' made for BBC T.V and never out of print in book form.He relocated in a peasant village in rural France, to immerse himself in what would form the subject of some of his most compelling writing.There has been no diminishing of power in his thought or eloquence as he gains his senior years. The Palestine issue, in particular, gets coverage. And he returne to the pitiless paintings of Francis Bacon for what I suspect will be his final published view of him. And there is a re-contexturalising of the great Piero Pasolini; Berger having just watched his 'La Rabbia'(how and where can I ever get to see this?). I guess, I wish the collection had more in it. But what is there is potent, direct and as usual, poetic. Which leads me to its title; not one of John's pieces, but the publication in its opening pages of a very beautiful poem by one, Gareth Evans. Have a squizz!

2 comments about Nazi Saboteurs On Trial: A Military Tribunal And American Law (Landmark Law Cases and American Society).

1. REVIEWED BY PHILIP GOLD http://www.washtimes.com/books/
   
   The Congressional Research Service, part of the Library of Congress, is filled with people who do fine work. Among the best is Louis Fisher, legal scholar and CRS senior specialist in Separation of Powers. Mr. Fisher combines a plain, effective style with a mature analytic sense. The result has been over three decades of books and studies that - blessings upon the taxpayer - actually inform and affect the real world. "Nazi Saboteurs on Trial," which Mr. Fisher intends as a prelude to his definitive history of American military tribunals, is only the latest example.
   This short, meticulously researched monograph assesses one of the stranger legal escapades of World War II. The facts of the case are not in question. What matters is how the military and civilian court systems performed, the interaction of the executive and judicial branches, and whether that episode should or could serve as precedent for the trial of terrorists and other "unlawful combatants" by military means.
   Mr. Fisher's answer: While such types do not and should not enjoy automatic access to the U.S. civilian court system and its protections, the use of military tribunals raises questions that cannot and should not be ignored.
   The facts of the case are these.
   In the 1941 "Sebold Affair," the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with the help of William Sebold, a German turned American counterspy, rolled up over 30 Nazi agents. Adolf Hitler, perturbed, demanded that English-speaking saboteurs be dispatched to America, there to smash factories and railroads and Jewish-owned department stores, spread panic, and generally make themselves a nuisance. German intelligence, the Abwehr, didn't think much of the idea, but deemed it prudent to keep the Fuhrer happy.
   So they went out and recruited the original Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight: eight Germans who had lived in the United States (two of them naturalized citizens), but had returned to Germany in the '30s for various reasons. None was the brightest tree in the forest; group cohesion and mutual trust might be described as negative, at best. Still, the eight were given a few weeks' training, then toted aboard two submarines.
   In June, 1942, one group landed in New Jersey, the other in Florida. They came ashore in German uniforms, which would give them combatant status in case of immediate capture. They then changed into civvies, buried their tradecraft, and walked off with not much more than their ample moneybelts and orders to win one for the Fuhrer.
   They were apprehended quickly, mostly because one of their number, George Dasch, called the FBI to let them know they'd arrived. Perhaps none of the men intended actually to commit any sabotage. None did. But that didn't keep six of them from the electric chair that August, and two others from life sentences.
   Justice, such as it was, came swiftly and questionably. President Franklin Roosevelt, taking a grim special interest in the case, determined to try them by secret military tribunal. He appointed the members and decreed himself the sole reviewing authority. Further, the tribunal would not be a standard court martial, governed by the Articles of War and other legislation. It would be an ad hoc commission, governed by the "laws of war" (a nebulous category) and empowered to make such procedural changes as it deemed expedient.
   Among them: Although civilian and military courts could not impose the death penalty for actual acts of sabotage, this tribunal could, and did, for acts that were never committed, and may never have been intended.
   Clearly, this setup raised numerous questions regarding the separation of powers, military jurisdiction in time of war, and of fundamental fairness. One of the defense attorneys petitioned the Supreme Court, which effectually evaded the issue until after the executions, then issued its opinion in Ex Parte Quirin - a document that did nothing for the luster of the Court, then or since.
   In essence, concludes Mr. Fisher, the Supreme Court functioned as "an arm of the executive." It reaffirmed that enemy combatants have no constitutional right of access to civilian courts; that the two citizens had forfeited their citizenship by taking up arms; and that when they took off their uniforms, they became "illegal combatants" who could have been shot out of hand, but who were graciously afforded a trial.
   Finally, the Court held that it could not assess the trial itself, since that was secret.
   In sum, a mixed set of precedents, ranging from common sense to dereliction of duty. And the question arises - will we be able to learn from the affair to make the handling and disposition of terrorists and other "illegal combatants" both more effective and more just?
   Or will we be fortunate even to do as well?



2. The previous review is right on; I would add that this book is succinct, and the prose is clear and laypersons should find it understandable. Indeed, laypeople might want to understand the problems that this 60-year-old case poses to our society now. The 9/11 attack and the subsequent Bush Administration order creating special military tribunals -- "military commissions" of the type that tried the 1942 saboteurs -- has inspired several new books on this incident. Mr. Fisher's book distinguishes itself in focusing on the legal importance of this case -- that became the Supreme Court's Ex Parte Quirin ruling. Quirin is still important case law in questions of special tribunals and wartime detention of enemy suspects. Further, and Mr. Fisher brings this out, the Bush Administration's tribunal system seems to be patterned on FDR's.
   
   I recommend this and Louis Fisher's 2005 work, Military Tribunals and Presidential Power to those interested in post-9/11 legal issues.

5 comments about Republic: A Novel of America's Future.

1. This book has a lot of potential, but I'd call it a near miss rather than a hit. The characters were interesting but my interest in them was tempered by a very awkward writing style. I also felt the secondary characters weren't fleshed out enough to support why they took some of the actions they did.
   
   I did like how even the 'bad guys' were portrayed as well meaning bumblers though. I suspect that the decay of any society is driven more by the poor decisions of people who just aren't able to rise to the occasion than it is by black hearted malfeasance.
   
   Also, the premise of an America sliding into a repressive 'constitutional dictatorship' wasn't supported very well by events in the book. I felt we didn't get enough of the 'pre-story' to adequately support why the West Virginians were willing to stand alone in rebellion to the rest of the USA nor were we told why if things were SO bad in the USA why no other states were also close to rebellion. We were 'told' things were bad all over, but the Feds only seemed to pick on West Virginia.
   
   As speculative fiction, I just don't believe the author created a believable enough universe to support the story. I realize there was a bit of political agenda in the writing of this document, and maybe the true believers will ignore its faults (Apparently, the trash talking Daily Kos did), but there just isn't enough 'meat' to this novel to make it something the world needs to read.
   
   These type of 'alternate history' stories need an enormous amount of detail (or at least create the illusion of enormous amounts of detail) to be successful, and in this area the novel fell short.



2. I hate to admit how scary this book is because I can see us living the story out in our country. The land I defended in the US Army is no longer free. The fact is the federal government continually takes more and more of our freedom in the name of security. I wish the story was more unrealistic but I don't think it is. That is why it is so gripping. The author has told a story the I can see happening. The characters are completely realistic and you will find yourself sitting on the edge of your seat.
   
   Charles Sheehan-Miles is as good an author as Clancy or Grisham.



3. I enjoyed this book. I thought the author's style gave us just enough information for us to know what's going on without boring us with detail. The characters were solid and I cared about them by the end. It's difficult for me to assess how realistic the plot is, but it did seem that too much had deteriorated too fast. I'm a big fan of dystopian fiction and I'm well aware of the encroachments of government power over the past eight years, but certain events seemed far too heavy handed without more background information about what happened between now and the time of the story. I was somewhat frustrated that we didn't receive more information in the epilogue about what happened to the country at the end, but I suppose it's covered in more detail in the sequel. Of course, this is all analysis afterward; I got caught up in the story while I was reading it and I think most readers will, too.
   
   The text itself needs another proofreader because there were small spelling, grammar and punctuation errors throughout that distracted me. I read the PDF version, so I don't know whether they made it to paper. Thank you, Mr. Sheehan-Miles, for making this book available free.



4. The book starts slow, but soon reaches a frantic pace. Well thought out and not over the top, a succession of a US state would likely end in this fashion.
   
   What strikes me about this novel, is that it is so well written and developed based on what we are seeing these days in our nation. The economical collapse, the out sourcing of jobs, a fatality damaged government bureaucracy, and an overpowered homeland security doctrine.
   
   The novel ends well with the door wide open for his future work, Insurgent.
   
   I can not wait. The story must go on. If you like possible scenarios and a large amount of conversation fodder, this novel is a must.



5. This book is a great read. Good story, and yes the good guys dont always win in the end, well it depends on who you think the good guys are. Would like to see a 2nd book to follow up on this one.

5 comments about Terrorism: Theirs and Ours.

1. From the perspective of someone from South Asia (Ahamd was from Pakistan), this book looks deeper at this thing called terrorism.
   
   There are several aspects to the official approach to terrorism. First, terrorists change. Yesterday's terrorist is today's freedom fighter, and vice versa. Second, there seems to be no such thing as an "official" definition of terrorism. Explanations are designed to arouse our emotions, instead of stimulating our intelligence. Third, government officials may not be able to define terrorism, but they know that it must be stamped out worldwide.
   
   Fourth, it's supposedly possible to tell the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. Fifth, the official approach ignores the causes of terrorism. Cause? What cause? Sixth, the moral revulsion against terrorism needs to be selective. Terror from disapproved groups needs to be strongly condemned, but terror from allies or approved groups can be ignored.
   
   Why do groups commit terrorist acts? Getting their grievances heard through regular channels hasn't worked, so, to them, terrorism is the only way to be heard. Terrorism is an expression of anger and helplessness, and also a sense of betrayal. Through the spread of modern technology and communications, terror has become globalized. Everyone is a target.
   
   The author recommends several approaches for America. Stop with the double standards. Don't condone some terrorism, and condemn others. In the present situation, such an approach will not work. Also, America should actually consider the causes of terrorism. It's a political problem; seek a political solution. The author also recommends reinforcing the framework of international law. Try going through the International Court of Justice.
   
   This is an excellent book. It's short, and written from a non-American perspective. It does a fine job looking at the background behind terrorism, and it's well worth reading.



2. This book affirms that American foreign allies are classified on whether their own goals converge or diverge from our own.
   
   During the 1970's and 1980's we had partnered with Saddam, deciding that he was a 'brutal dictator' only when his objectives no longer echoed American public policy priorities.
   
   Similarly, the people whom the State department now identifies as being 'dangerous' were at one point benign or even considered beneficial---because they had then supported our world view. It is critical and sobering to wonder who is organizing outside of today's policymaker scrutiny.
   
   Regardless of the administration, such relationships of convenience are THE rule in international relations. America talks a good deal about wanting to respect human rights, but the real world often facilitates less stringency.



3. Wonderful prescient, but all too brief. Serves as a good introduction to the ideas of the dear departed Ahmad who would be a valuable contributor to the worldwide debate on what exactly consititutes terrorism. The way he shows that the term "terrorism" is construed to eliminate any links to state-sponsored violence and torture demands our attention and respect. This is a courageous and intelligent book.



4. Now, if this only came with crayons and pictures to color in, it might attract the attention of those who really need a crash course in terrorism. To the point, devine intervention happens to other people, but the self-righteousness of powerful America is what makes it so hypocritical. Unfortunately, I expect this primer to be as relevant for decades to come, so let's hope it doesn't go out of print.



5. Take a look at the cover photo of this book, and the inside content becomes apparent. You can see people, who are now branded as terrorists, were, at one time, chief guests in the White House.
   
   This book carries some of Eqbal Ahmad's writings and transcripts of lectures on various international conflicts including US-Afghanistan and India-Pakistan. This book does a good job of exposing US Govt's hypocrisy and its unilateral goal of furthering only its own interests at the expense of everything and everyone in this world. It also tells you why and how the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts erupted, and why they have only worsened ever since they began. There's a brief discussion on the Kashmir issue as well. I wish it carried more details. Overall, this book presents to its readers a brief but accurate insight into the most prominent present day international conflicts.
   
   Do not think that if you are not interested in international politics, you may find this book boring. Due to its concise nature, this book is very much readable and comprehensible to all. I say it is a "must-have" for every American, because it will tell them what their politicians haven't. US is the only country that, since its birth, has been at war every single day of the year at some place on this earth. It is mind-boggling to imagine what kind of wealth its people would have amassed if the same trillions of dollars that have been cumulatively spent on mindless killing of people and building nuclear weapons that will never be used, had been just distributed in cash to its citizens. It is no wonder that Eqbal Ahmad's words carried a great deal of truth. Why else would the CIA send its operatives to his house at night to threaten him if he didn't shut up? Eqbal was however up to the challenge, and told them to pack-off immediately since he was acting only in accordance with the US constitution, which says - "No taxation without representation". He said that since his views were not represented by the policies of the US Govt even though he paid taxes, he had every right to protest.
   
   That was Mr Eqbal Ahmad, a foremost authority on international conflicts, alongside, I would say, Noam Chomsky. Do not miss this book. It is worth a thousand times its cover price. After reading this book, I can assure, you will be only egged on to read his other detailed books.

5 comments about A Republic, Not an Empire: Reclaiming America's Destiny.

1. You have only to read the bad reviews to know why you should buy this book immediately!



2. A good title, but State of Emergency is just as solid. Read them both.



3. The purpose here is to "revisit the history of American foreign policy, its successes, triumphs, and failures". From that we can "expose the myths and identify the true traditions".
   
   Well written, eloquent, and insightful. Although labeled an isolationist, Buchanan would not see us weakened militarily. He delivers a bold history lesson of our presidents and the nations foreign affairs; the domestic policy is all but ignored. He has been proven right on future scenarios, but has been proven wrong by underestimating the U.S.
   
   Buchanan writes: All great empires were crushed because of wars, we are the last remaining superpower and we are headed for destruction. Our military is overextended and we are issuing dangerous guarantees. Through NATO: We are becoming more the defense of the world; other nations rely on us, so they spend less on defense; who will protect us? NATO is becoming more and more a U.S. organization; this is viewed as a take-over. There is a distinction between American expansion (Manifest Destiny) and naked aggression on other soils. Other nations are now joining up against us, who normally would not. If we stayed out of W.W.I, there may have never been a Hitler or a W.W.II. Cause and effect issued in W.W.I, W.W.II, China, Korea, and the Cold War. Not only does Buchanan warn us of foreign wars and occupation, but also the threat to our south--Mexico.
   
   What's the cost of intervention? What did our founding fathers envision for us? What is the right foreign policy for America?
   
   A democracy will eventually fail and a democracy without God will surely fail.
   
   Wish you well
   Scott



4. A sobering reminder of the original ideals behind America's founding, and how far we've strayed. Writing long before our current GWOT travails, Buchanan was the Cassandra of our time....



5. I've never been a fan of Pat Buchanan, but I still tried to read this book with an open mind. I believe history should be written by historians, which Buchanan is not, and he lives up to my reasons for why I believe this to be true. Given the title of the book, it would have been beneficial to define what exactly is a republic and what is an empire. Since Buchanan does not do this, we are at the mercy of his opinions.
   
   I suppose any dummy can regurgitate dates and events, but that doesn't mean one is writing "history." History comes from the summation of the events into a logical thesis supported by facts. This is where Buchanan misses the mark.
   
   The book is a strange amalgam of sections. The first critiques the current (1999) world of American foreign policy. Buchana criticises America for being involved in parts of the world where it has no vital interest. So far so good. He then assumes the role of prophet and projects where America's future wars will be. There are some interesting theories here, and some have more or less actually happened. OK, we're still on the right track.
   
   Then Pat's wheels come off. He recites the panorama of American history, glossing over it that it only vaguely resembles a cohesive argument, to show how America followed a course of Manifest Destiny that promoted the republic, not empire. Huh? Manifest Destiny and Imperialism are easily interchangable terms, and Pat can't seem to figure that out. What are America's natural borders? It would be a cop out to say from sea to shining sea, because given the realities of the times when the borders expanded, there was always a need for collective security, both geopolitical and economic that was at work. America had no natural "right" to expand to the Pacific Ocean and to Alaska and Hawaii, it did so to cement its imperial reign on the continent. We couldn't capture Canada or Mexico, so we had to take what we could.
   
   Once our nation had filled in what we now recognize as our borders, we turned to overseas affairs by fighting Spain and two world wars. Buchanan chastises thos presidents who fail to prepare for war in order to secure the peace. Had he read the Federalist, he would have learned that a true republic distrusts its military as an implement of empire. Again, Pat misses the boat completely.
   
   He naturally concludes the greatness of Reagan, though one could argue running up a deficit to defeat communism did not do our republic any favors. The book concludes with a summary of foreign policy that has American forces occupying eastern Europe though we have no vital interests there. That is not a bad argument. He also predicted the current war in Iraq and poignantly illustrates on page 327 how the destruction of Iraq would force the United States into defending against Iran. Again, I agree with him here.
   
   His main point is that America should focus its energy on those interests that are vital to us. The neoconservative ideology that got us into our current middle eastern imbroglio and the liberal ideology that played to the "peace divident" after the fall of the USSR both receive Buchanan's ire. He follows the America First idea that he traces to George Washington, but over the course of 225 years (and 400 pages of Buchanan's book)has fallen victim to Wall Street power brokers and their lackey bought and paid for politicians such as the Bush-Cheney duo. Pat's book isn't worth but one star, but neither is it worth four or five.

No comments about Light in the Heart of Darkness: EMDR and the Treatment of War and Terrorism Survivors.

5 comments about Pirates and Emperors, Old and New: International Terrorism in the Real World.

1. I am personally flabbergasted at Susan Norton's review. It's utter twaddle. Did she read the book? Chomsky, in case after case, many times using the mainstream "free" press as a source, conveys the absolute savagery and hyorcrisy of the U.S.'s #1 client state regime, Israel. One might be skeptical of what he is saying when one begins to read the book, but when he uses, perhaps, over 100 hundred cases that prove his points then it really becomes hard to refute what he is saying. Did Susan Norton take a look at just how incredibly extensive Chomsky's sources are? They're astronomically broad! They range from independent sources such as Amnesty International, and other human rights groups, declassified U.S. documents, the American and Israeli Commissar class, and others from the heart of the American Empire! (Just to name a few).
   
   This book really helps put the Arab-Israeli conflict into a proper political context. Remember this is not necessarily a history book per se, but a record of terrorism committed by ISRAEL and the UNITED STATES and how their terrorism far outweighs Palestinian terrorism. Conventional wisdom would have you believe the opposite and Chomsky provides the reasons why.



2. Professor Noam Chomsky deserves a literary award for this scholarly treatise that exposes the hypocrisies and selective standards the big powers use with respect to the
   word "terrorism." Chomsky brilliantly illustrates that by the internationally accepted definition of the word terrorism, the Western powers are guilty of state sponsored terrorism by their support of attrocities against Third World peoples such as the
   Palestinains, Kurds, East Timorese, and others.
   
   The convenient countries that are targeted for sanctions against terrorism are Iraq, Iran, Syria, Cuba, and North Korea. Chomsky argues that should a leader who supports
   Western expansionism and domination such as the Shah of Iran or Ferdinand Marcos of the Phillipines
   arise, the countries will be termed "friendly" and "moderate" like the Gulf potentates and Indonesia.
   
   I thorougly enjoyed reading this book and others by the same author. Chomsky consistently points out the mistakes and fallacies of policy makers through his superb
   mastery of polemics and prose. His style is entertaining and never loses my interest. I suggest any prospective student in international relations be required to read this text by
   one of America's leading dissident voices, particularly in this time of "war on terror," which has been advocated and advanced by the Bush Administration.



3. Noam Chomsky has thrived greatly in this great country of his, yours, and mine - the United States of America. He has made millions of dollars teaching, lecturing, selling his books, and investing. His world-wide fame in psycholinguistics is well-deserved. His infamy is merited for his lack of loyalty to his own Jewish ethnicity and the U.S., in spite of the fruits he has received by being a citizen of the United States. He has repaid this country in bile with his incredibly biased analysis of American foreign policy. He goes way beyond a balanced multiculturism, when he always ranks the U.S. and Israel as foremost among the terrorist forces in the world now, and even in history. His distrust of any authority, benign or otherwise, is reflected in his dogmatic and unexamined support of the "underdog," even if that underdog is a suicide bomber or a major terrorist organization such as Al Queda or Hezbollah.
   
   Yet since 1955, hypocrite Chomsky has worked for the "overdog" Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which has actively and enthusiastically participated in the development of weapons of War and mass destruction, and continues to this very day.
   
   Chomsky trumps his own potential for gifted analytic objectivity with his simple hatred of the United States and the Jewish State.
   
   If he were not so attached to the freedom of making money, earning the adulation of the American Left, and freedom to express himself, he might be able to give more direct and personal support for our enemies and his friends by taking up residence in North Korea, Iran, or Syria. Let us hope he retires outside of our homeland that he hates so much, the United States of America.
   
   God Bless America, which will continue to give Chomsky the right to speak, teach, and make lots of money.
   
   Rayboy



4. I am someone who actually worked on this book when it was published years ago. When I read the manuscript in preparation for publication, I was thrilled. Unlike the Zionist critics, or those afraid to see the world as it is, I was not afraid of the damning analysis of my country and of my ethnic breatheren. Though I may be a Jew, I do not not hold with Zionism and its hatreds. I love this book. We should be thankful that Chomsky stands where does, shoots for the truth, and challenges us to lay down our biases while on the joureny to enlightenment.



5. It interesting to see how the critics of Mr. Chomsky might my call him by several nasty names, but fail to present evidence to contradict its presentation of the facts about why USA and Israel are among the largest terrorist actors in the world responsible of merciless and cinical killings of thousands of civilians.
   
   Suprinsigly he does not accomodate the definition of what is a terrorist or a terrorist act to fit its conclusions. He gets there using the definition coinded by the US government.
   
   That is why the reaction of his critics is so emotional, nobody likes it what its dark side is exposed.
   
   By the way he does not argue that the guys on the other side are the good ones, he simply points out how sad it is that neither USA, Israel can claim to be innocent victims of terrorism when a maniac blows himself and several bystanders in a burger joint or takes down a bulding with a plane.

5 comments about Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama Bin Laden, Radical Islam & the Future of America.

1. As this book is re-released, readers should be well aware that Michael Scheuer is the perfect example of the miserable state of American intelligence services - thankfully, he no longer provides analysis for the CIA, now it's the general public that gets to read his "intelligence". A great example of his extraordinary incompetence was provided on March 12, 2006 when he suggested to Ian Masters on KPFK, Los Angeles, that the attack on Samarra's Golden Mosque was more likely carried out by the Israeli military than by al-Qaida. From this text, as with his most recent pronouncements, it is indeed difficult not to conclude that Scheuer is absolutely besotted with bin Laden.



2. I titled this review "Frightening Assessment" because if the author is correct, which I tend to agree he is, the war on terror is going to last a lot longer than any of us have imagined, or else end in quick defeat when the liberals completely sell us out to the enemy.
   
   The author makes the point that Osama Bin Laden, while being a charasmatic leader, is not the real problem. The problem is that we, like it or not, are fighting an ideology that presents itself as a religion, and ideology/religion is absolutely devoted to the destruction of Western society. The problem is like the mythical Hydra: cut off one head and two more will spring into its place. In other words, this war will continue long after Bin Laden is roasting in Hell.
   
   With that said, what will ultimately defeat us is not the enemy directly, but our lack of understanding of who the enemy actually is and why they hate us. Until we recognize that we will be severely, possibly fatally, handicapped.
   
   The one peeve I have with the author, as with so most of the pseudo-journalists today, is that he consistantly referred to the Muslim god "Allah" as "God." Indeed, most of the time you read or hear an English translation of an Arabic source, "Allah" is usually rendered "God." It has to be pointed out that "Allah" is not the same person as "God." All that has to be pointed out to prove that point is that Allah has no son named Jesus Christ, though I could go on and on about the distinctions. Christians and Muslims do NOT worship the same Being.
   
   Why do I make that point? That very issue is at the heart of the misunderstanding that this same author so aptly discusses.



3. One review here states:
   
   "The one peeve I have with the author, as with so most of the pseudo-journalists today, is that he consistantly referred to the Muslim god "Allah" as "God." Indeed, most of the time you read or hear an English translation of an Arabic source, "Allah" is usually rendered "God." It has to be pointed out that "Allah" is not the same person as "God." All that has to be pointed out to prove that point is that Allah has no son named Jesus Christ, though I could go on and on about the distinctions. Christians and Muslims do NOT worship the same Being."
   
   Actually, Muslims DO believe they worship the same god as that revered by those they call the 'people of the book' - just that Mohammad's revelations were the last and final word on matters (superceding all others).
   
   The Muslim call to prayer begins "la allah illa Allah", which means EXACTLY, "There is no god but God". I hear it five times a day from a hundred mosques in this city.



4. Any studying Islamic terrorism and the current war must understand Bin Laden, his movement, and how radical Islam operates. There's no better place to do this than with the latest revised edition THROUGH OUR ENEMIES' EYES: OSAMA BIN LADEN, RADICAL ISLAM AND THE FUTURE OF AMERICA. Here is a treatment which analyzes his ideology, its translation to terrorist activities, and its potential for future conflict. Chapters provide a strong focus on Bin Laden's character traits, various exiles, impact on other nations, and instigation of jihad. A 'must' for any who would understand the roots of Bin Laden's organization and ideas.



5. A professor of mine was once discussing the economic motivation for terrorism in a course designed to look at social ills around the world through the lens of economics. He abruptly stopped, half-way through the middle of a sentence, solemnly looked above his reading glasses at the students in the class, and said one of the most interesting things I remember from the class. "I am an academic," he said. "When speaking of these events, I am not making a moral judgment on them. I am simply looking at them through the lens of an individual trying to understand something for the sake of dealing with it. That does not mean that I condone or am complicit in the action, but it does note my character. I am trying to understand it, and that is something very different from simply labeling it."
   
   Often, when I see that people are attacked for books that delve into such topics, it is usually an ad hominem attack meant to discredit them as unpatriotic or complicit with the enemy. Whatever their reasons, the attackers forget that to conquer your enemy, you must understand him. Only then can you fully realize the most effective tactics in dealing with him. Maybe the rest of us can learn a little bit by people like Michael Scheuer.

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

5 comments about Striking Back: The 1972 Munich Olympics Massacre and Israel's Deadly Response.

1. This excellent book is by an Israeli journalist who was able to get remarkable access to Mossad. One might think this would result in a one-sided presentation, but Klein has done an excellent job of being extremely objective and analyzing the twin motivations of revenge and deterrence that underlay the strike-back assassinations after Munich. The only point on which he isn't objective (and with good reason) is in his unreserved condemnation of the action, inaction, negligence, and callousness (not to mention stupidity) of the German officials during the 21 hours or so of the hostage crisis. The book is worth reading for his thorough account of that one day in September.
   
   Klein's analysis of the Mossad reaction is unsparing, especially in the disaster and tragedy at Lilliehammer, when Mossad agents killed an innocent man whom they should have realized was not Ali Hassan Salameh ("The Red Prince"). Six Mossad operatives were actual imprisoned in Norway for this crime, and the fact that "Munich" never makes mention of this incident is sufficient refutation to those who ridiculously claim that Spielberg and Tony Kushner were insufficiently sympathetic to Israel. While he wrote the book in Hebrew, Klein makes it clear this is not an apologia for Mossad. He sternly questions the rightness of the process in which Palestinian terrorists were identified and "prosecuted" in "show trials" before Israeli Prime Ministers who issued death sentences. People identified as "architects" of Munich often had little if any direct connection to the tragedy. He also carefully analyses the deterrence claim. While Black September terror largely faded after the strike-back assassinations, this appears to have had much to do with the PLO's attempt for legitimacy (Arafat addressing the U.S. in 1974, etc.) and reluctance to incur the wrath of potentially friendly European governments by continuing to execute terror strikes in their countries. Klein also explodes the myth of Mossad invincibility, pointing out with great irony that two of the actual Munich terrorists are still alive, and neither of the actual planners of the mission (Abu Daoud and Abu Ehyad) died at Mossad's hands. Abu Daoud is, in fact, still alive, and Abu Ehyad was assassinated by an extremist Abu Nidal follower because Abu Ehyad had become "soft" on the destruction of Israel.
   
   Don't confuse this book with the movie "Munich," however. "Munich" is based on a different book, George Jonas's "Vengeance," based on the recollections of a Mossad agent. There have been some criticisms and questions of "Avner"'s story in "Vengeance." Klein's account, however, shows that the initial 3 assassinations and the Spring of Youth assassinations in Beiruit were generally very accurately portrayed in "Munich." I see "Munich" as more of a philosophical question about the human cost of the eye-for-an-eye approach, and the ultimate futility of translating ideology into direct and violent action, especially when it means undertaking violent action that is dangerously similar to the type of action undertaken by your enemy. Klein's book is more of a thoughtful policy analysis of what Mossad did, and whether it was effective. While Klein claims that moral judgments are far beyond the scope of his book, they are an inevitable consequence of evaluating the remarkable research that he has compiled.



2. Yes, I understand this is not a novel, but it is as dryly written as a computer manual. It's a shame because the story is compelling, true and quite dynamic.



3. I purchased and read this book after having seen Steven Spielberg's movie "Munich" and I am glad I did it in that order. While reading the book I could picture many of the scenes from the movie which helped keep all the names and characters straight. A sad, enthralling story - I could not put it down.



4. This is the second book I bought for my son, and one for myself because my son said that MUNICH was 90% fiction.
   VENGEANCE was the story of one Israeli spy team as told to the author by the leader of that one team. This book, STRIKING BACK is more scholarly, and discusses many teams, the theory behind the teams, the results of their wet work, and also tells us about Israeli policy as it changes through the years. Both books help us understand that the facts and stories as presented are 90% fact, and we can learn a gret deal about how Israel survives using an Old Testament technique ("An Eye for an Eye.". Israel's survival depends on how it responds to attacks and we have a clearer understanding of the reason for desperate measures. It's a good book, a more difficult read than VENGEANCE, but worth the effort.



5. This was a very interesting book describing a very tumultous time in Israel's history. I'd recommend it to anyone wanting to understand more about "Munich" and the history of Palestinian and/or Islamic terrorism
   
   The author did a good job of pointing out the pros and cons of Israel's assassination policy, including the bungled job in Lillehammer, Norway that resulted in the death of an (apparently) innocent civilian. It's not a simple issue, by far. Overall, though, the work of the Mossad over time probably did reduce the incidents of terrorism, and I think a reasonable person would come to that conclusion by looking objectively at the evidence. Whether it justifies killing a target in another sovereign nation is another issue, though I lean slightly toward the positive.