5 comments about The Demon Lover: The Roots of Terrorism.

1. This book argues several points regarding world history. First, the victims, sacrifices and heroes of wars have always been defined in terms of males; the victorious general, the dead soldier, the grunt in the trenches, etc.., despite the fact the primary victims of wars are civilians - women and children. Second, the factors that demographic, economic and political causes that lead to wars can often be attributed to a male-dominated society. Third, women by nature would probably make better rulers and do a better job of avoiding war, but the political landscape in many countries is biased against women in leadership positions.
   
   The author presents a lot of factual and historical data to support her viewpoints. This includes interviews with war victims and criminals, citations of government documents, treaties, war plans, references to religious and historical works, and opinions by others who have explored the role of sex and gender in politics and war.
   
   The problem with the book and why I would not recommend it is the style the author uses. Her arguments come at the reader like bullets from a machine gun, quickfire and haphazard. Facts and examples are cited in quick succession without text to place them in context. The text is divided into chapters, but the number of arguments and sources of arguments are so numerous and varied that each chapter should be broken into subsections. Overall, the points in this book are insightful and I agree with most of them. But the writing style is horrible.



2. First the bad news!! The constant,cloying comments about the "patriarchal/ masculinist/ male dominated" world, and all the horrors unleashed by this world got on my nerves, and were truly way overdone! OK, this is a feminist tract, but enough's enough! Imagine a book,written by male or female, this angry about the feminine sex! Who would/could publish it?! Having said that, this is definitely among the most passionate and personal books I've ever read, full of interesting ideas starting with ancient mythology about how the author feels terrorists are incubated, mainly through the lazy, macho, women-hating males out there! She builds up a good case, and there is a lot of truth to her comments, even if she does vent too much spleen! The trip to 1980's Palestine was almost worth the price of the book, even if all women all described as wonderful, educated, child rearing, usually beaten by their male counterparts,drunken, uncaring lowlifes and bullies who can't wait to dress up in their guns and ammo suits, and kill whatever enemy is current. During the 1982 Lebanon War, all the artillery noise and racket suddenly stops! Why? So all the men can take a few hours off from killing and maiming to check out the World Cup Games on TV! Probably not far from the truth, like our Super Bowl! Lots of this book is downright mesmorizing, and terrifically well done, and the basic point of domineering war-loving men loving and leaving starry eyed women is probably true! Maybe a little dated, but even with it's flaws, a page turner well worth a few hours of one's time!



3. This book has never been more important than it is today. It's prophetic, and illuminating. It will shift the view you may have of terrorism, why we're at war, and who is doing the warring, permanently. A truly 'must read' volume. Morgan's best non-fiction.



4. This book attempts to analyze the interconnectness between war, sexuality and terrorism. The author, Robin Morgan, begins her book with historical accounts of violence and terrorism that she contends existed since biblical times. Morgan maintains that terrorism can assume many shapes, for instance: Multinational corporations, governments, rebel groups such as the IRA (Irish Republican Army) and other international freedom fighters. Morgan provides several example of how terrorism is defined. One definition of terrorism, according to political science professor Yehezkel Dror, is "the use of selective intense violence by small groups to undermine democratic government, and to bring about changes (ill-defined) in regime and society..." (2001:39). The rest of the definitions she provides hold the same idea as the definition provided by Dror. Reading this book was, frankly, disturbing. The author repeatedly makes inaccurate and out of context claims perpetuating negative stereotypes of terrorism, men, women and Arab and Muslim communities.
   Morgan also includes a timeline of accounts of violence against women between 1989 to 2000. In the time line she highlights such cases as the murder of Nicole Simpson by accused football player O. J. Simpson, serial killer Ted Bundy and Canadian gunman Marc Lepine. Morgan repeatedly fails to contextualize any of her theories and outlandish claims and states, "The long fuse of manhood that's been burning for centuries has, in this age of globalization, become a conflagration of heroes/martyrs/killers/. It is the era of the demon lover" (Morgan 2001:14).
   At first it may appear to the reader that perhaps with the references in the book such as Franz Fannon, C. Wright Mills, Hannah Arrendt or William O'Brien that maybe Morgan's argument holds weight, but while reading it became clear that Morgan's book is far from an accurate portrayal of violence against women, terrorism or sexuality and is a disservice to, especially Arab and Muslim communities.
   Within the contents of the Demon Lover, Morgan describes her two months visit to Palestine and her travels throughout the refugee camps conducting qualitative research and collecting stories from the women who live in these camps. Morgan misleads the reader by stating she doesn't want to take a tour bus with the other journalists, and specifically asserts that she doesn't want to infringe on peoples lives (2001: 250). Instead, using the accounts of Palestinian refugee women, Morgan exploits the women by contributing to the racist, stereotypical and completely inaccurate misrepresentation of Palestinian women. At one point in her book, she discusses how the World Cup soccer was on and how the men "finally" absolved from violence for a few moments to watch the game. Meanwhile the woman ran amuck "foraging" for food and burying their dead, as if Palestinian men lack the ability to mourn a lost son or sister to the atrocities of Israeli military occupation.
   Morgan continually perpetuates the stereotypes of Arab men being hypersexist and preoccupied by violence. She even goes so far as to say that through this intergenerational cycle, fathers force their sons to adopt the same ideologies about violence, disowning their sons if they refuse (2001:33). She also claims that men's sexual obsession with women is central to their masculinity. According to Morgan the majority of terrorists are male and her underlying premise is, women are seen only as "tokens" and are involved in acts of terrorism because of their love for a particular man, "a demon lover," draws them in and by whom they are seduced.
   Although she asserts that she doesn't support biological determinism, she continues to provide the reader with the idea that men are naturally violent and women are notoriously the peacemakers. In the final chapter, Beyond Terror: The Politics of Eros, Morgan argues that we need to abandon "the politics of Thanatos" and adopt "the politics of Ethos" (2001: 326). In other words the author calls for a solution of not subscribing to Thanatos or male/violence, but instead embracing a life of Eros or female/love.
   Demon Lover poses numerous rudimentary questions and never attempts to follow through and provide solutions to the list of endless of non-contextualized claims. Although in the contents of Demon Lover, Morgan claims not to have any expertise or solutions, she manages to provide only the most simplistic solution of the embracing Ethos.
   Throughout Demon Lover, Morgan makes statements and poses theories that all lack context. The detrimental effect of a lack of contextualization and the omission of accurate accounts of history leads to misinforming readers and reinforcing the stereotypes. One of the many injustices and disservices that Morgan provides in her research is she never addresses the fact that occupation and the politics of war impact societies, changing dynamics for all individuals



5. I would divide the book into two acts. The first half of the book is the philosophic explanation of terror and atrocity, the second half is more of a case study of women living in the context of terror. Also, in response to another reviewer's observation about out of date explanations being republished, the introduction of the book states that the book was slated to be republished prior to 9/11 and was actually pulled from the presses so that a new introduction could be written. It was not republished directly in response to the events in question. I read it the spring afterward. At that time I thought it was the only thing that actually explained the independent variables behind terror. I think her analysis is consistent with an academic understanding of agriculture and patriarchy and therefore consistent with a biblical view of the fallen world whereas civilization is contingent on patriarchal modes of production and authority whereby we displace God, no other permutation of civilization is possible without divine intervention. The alternative is tribalism. That said, her analysis is dead on.

5 comments about Fuse of Armageddon.

1. Originally published on my blog at hewhocutsdown.blogspot.com.
   
   Recently my wife & I sat down & had lunch with a much more experienced writer and author, Sigmund Brouwer. He & I are working together on a project that is yet to be released, but he gave me a gift in his latest work, entitled Fuse of Armageddon.
   
   It's a strange animal.
   
   In writing style, the pace matches some of Clancy's novels (most notably Rainbow Six), constantly accelerating toward the climax. This works both for and against the novel, as I finished it in two sittings (would have been one had I a longer flight), but there is only a much abbreviated dénouement to close it, where a few more pages would have been warranted.
   
   Thematically it takes aim at a very specific target market: open-minded, evangelical Christians who read thrillers such as the ridiculously popular Left Behind series. In all truth it is very open all, with vividly detailed locales and arguments that lay the foundation before building upon them, but this does not discount it's primary role. Fuse is really meant to expand evangelical Christians' thinking to really look at the consequences of a dispensational eschatology hell-bent on pre-millenialism. If you didn't understand that last sentence, don't worry about it; I didn't mean you.
   
   The sarcastic comments of Khaled Safady probably capture this irony the best. In listening in to a Christian group touring the Holy Land, he juts in (paraphrased):
   
   
   "In miles, how long is that river of blood?" (referring to the predicted river of blood from God's 'winepress of wrath')
   
   "Roughly two hundred miles, twenty-five feet wide and four and a half feet deep."
   
   "Incredible. How many people would this require?"
   
   "Two hundred million."
   
   "But I'm a physician. I've seen horrible accidents. I've seen people die. Any wound with enough blood loss to lead to death stops the heart long before the heart can pump itself dry. How will Christ squeeze the remaining blood from two hundred million bodies?"
   
   "Revelation tells us there is a great winepress and that the blood came from the winepress."
   
   "Incredible. All two hundred million bodies get fed through a winepress to be squeezed of their blood? How long would that take? Even at the rate of one body per second, that would only be 60 bodies per minute, 3600 bodies per hour, and from what I've calculated just now...maybe 80,000 per day. Make it 100,000 for even math."
   
   "I find this macabre..."
   
   "But earlier I heard a chorus of amens and hallelujahs...joy as you had us contemplate the deaths of liberals and gays, Arabs and Muslims who are left behind. I find that equally macabre"
   
   "The unjust will pay the price"
   
   "So you're telling me Jesus will return and spend his first 5 and a half years squeezing out the blood of his enemies?"
   
   
   If you're going to read Revelation and other biblical prophesy as literal events, fine. But accept the consequences of that interpretation, as grotesque and horrific as they may be. Or take a step back and seriously re-evaluate what brought you those beliefs.
   
   I know that I have gotten truly enraged; something that has happened only 3 times since leaving home; listening to a tele-evangelist giving Israel carte blanche for genocidal warfare. I in no way believe in supporting terrorism, and that includes the terrorism of nation-states.
   
   This book is not a theological breakdown, nor is it a political seminar or a primer on Mid-East policy. What it is, is a thriller that leaves you with the question: do my beliefs add or detract to the problems at hand? Is that because of me, or because of the belief?
   
   And that is what makes this such a wonderful book. It's a step back from my usual bookshelf (I prefer source works, history and Dostoevsky) but for a general audience, this is a voice that needs to be heard, a novel that needs to be read, and more than just read. It requires action, and like the Jonathan Silver in the novel, making the jump from theory to action can be a frightening one, but it can make a world of difference.
   
   Peace



2. Fuse of Armageddon is a novel to be enjoyed on two levels. On one level, it is a solid piece of Christian fiction. Sigmund Brouwer is a clever story teller who rises to the task of authoring a thriller tailored to a modern Christian audience. The plot's strength is its subtlety; the heroes are not gloriously converted or the perfect blend of holiness and worldly wisdom. They are fallible and at times their faith seems ambiguous. Even the villians have a point. Although Brouwer is clever writer who has done his homework, at times the plot lines seemed a bit rushed and the dialogue stiff and awkward.
   
   On the second level, the novel is essentially a trojan horse for Hanegraaf's theological position on the end times, which runs counter to the doctrines held by millions of evangelical Christians. Through the fictional characters, Hanegraaf is able to carefully pinpoint and apply pressure on some weak points of popular end times theology. For example, querying why there would be the need for restored Jewish sacrifices in the light of Christ's atonement does indeed give one pause. That it comes from a Islamic terrorist is a delicious irony.
   
   One flaw is the thinly veiled contempt for those who hold the contrary view, and that comes out in the book. Evidently to Hanegraaf, the millions of believers who hold to "Rapture theology" have basically been duped by slick talking TV preachers, and are stuck in an intellectual rut of not being able to think through difficult theological concepts. Maybe they need to listen to the Bible Answer Man broadcast more.
   
   To his credit though, Hanegraaf doesn't waste a lot time splitting doctrinal hairs, but emphasizes the disastrous impact of years of western Christian neglect toward the Palestinians and the geopolitical events in the Middle East. On this point, Hanegraaf's moral logic is unassailable.
   
   This is a very good book; very entertaining and morally engaging to anyone who has wondered about the Middle East crisis from a Biblical perspective. You may not agree with the thesis, but it contains a viewpoint that is intelligently and creatively presented.



3. Just a good thriller! First book I have read by either of these authors and I was very impressed!



4. I tend to read more nonfiction than fiction, but I must say I've enjoyed all 3 books in this series. All 3 have been definite page-turners.
   
   The plot is a little complicated at times and it can be hard to keep track of what's going on. Especially since the book keeps you guessing at a lot of characters' real intentions (which is one of the things that keeps this book so interesting). Although the book makes no effort to make the ending surprising, the characters keep you guessing and there's suspense until the very end.
   
   One reviewer commented that this book is a bit of a Trojan horse for Hanegraaff's ideas, which is true. A few scenes were obvious devices to work the theology in, but at least the scenes were still plausible and didn't seem too out of place. As Hanegraaff often says on his radio show, ideas have consequences, and the authors try to show that here. Dispensationalism has major consequences for the Middle East and our foreign policy.
   
   My only complaint was that this book was completely unrelated to the last two in the series. I hope the authors write another "Last Disciple" book soon so I can find out what happens to those characters too.
   
   Overall, I'd recommend this book, both for its ideas and the story itself. It's very good on all accounts, and a very worthwhile read that will certainly entertain you and may transform your thinking while it's at it.



5. There is nothing more annoying (to me) than to pick up a FICTION book and find the authors shoving their political agenda down your throat. I wasted my money on this book, wish I could get it back. The book started out really well, and then went straight to the toilet when the authors started preaching that the plight of the Palestinians is all the fault of Christians and Israel. Oh, yeah, strapping a bomb on your back and blowing up children in an ice cream shop is caused by the lack of funds sent in humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people. I'm so glad that these intelligent men have solved the problem that society has been grappling with for some time now. Oh, but, what about the rest of the Arab world, which has never allowed these people to claim a home, no matter where they wandered to. Even Jordan didn't want them. So, why don't they bomb the Jordanians? Gosh, kind of weakens your arguments, doesn't it? Oh, and of course, let's not forget their corrupt leadership that has lined it's own pockets with aid sent from the good ole US of A, aid that never reaches it's people. Next time, please warn people in advance that you have a political agenda in your book. It will save people money.
   
   Unless you buy into the garbage that WE are to blame for allowing Israel to reclaim their land, and we have been unfair in aid sent to the Palestinians (could have made Arafat a whole lot richer if we sent more), that all the hatred from the Muslims is because of these two reasons, then don't waste your money. That is the underlying premise that this book is based on.

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 Why We Fight: Moral Clarity and the War on Terrorism.

1. I am a British citizen. I have just read this book and it left me stunned. I can only conclude that the author is barking mad and the positive reviews of this book are written by people who were educated in DisneyLand.
   
   If this book made you "feel good" for being a patriotic, right-wing, conservative American then all I can say is: Use the internet to LEARN stuff instead of looking at porn sites.



2. I was reading a debate between Noam Chomsky and William Bennet on their new books, so I decided to buy them both. I won't review Mr. Chomsky's book here, but Mr. Bennet's book is terrible. I thought it was bad enough to actually write a review so other people do not buy this book. The message is basically, if you love your country, agree and support what your government does.



3. Bennett's own logic undermines itself. He is in essence arguing that to be a truly patriotic American, one must check your brains in at the door and unquestioningly accept everything our government tells us. Welcome to the machine.
   
   Our country was founded on the premise that individuals should have the capability to think for themselves and critique those in power. It's time that we rediscovered that to appropriately confront those in power is true American patriotism.



4. The media dwells on American actions, with their armchair quarterbarck view. We face difficult decisions but the existential threat is real - and the need to face those threats is clear.



5. For too long we have allowed the PC view of the world to control our thoughts, making some of the most absurd positions the accepted "truth". William Bennett here lays it all out in a succinct and clear fashion, helping bring us back to reality, and showing us why we must maintain and promote moral clarity in the face of sworn enemies.
   We cannot assume that all nations and peoples will act benevolently towards us when we do so towards them; that is the utopian wishful thinking of the 60's which history clearly debunks. We also cannot lose sight of the fact that Islam is not just a religion but also a political system whose major tenet is that of converting the world to its religion, and submitting it to its political control. That, above all else, has been behind Muslim agression for 1300 years, and the "excuse of the week" (Israel, our presence in the Gulf, etc.) is only used as a means of continuing the Jihad duty to which all Muslims are sworn and to convince ignorant Westerners of the justness of their "struggle".
   Read this book and bring yourself back to reality.

No comments about Spectrum of Terror.

3 comments about Inside the Shadow Government: National Emergencies and the Cult of Secrecy.

1. The books presents a scenario of September 11th had a plane stuck the Capitol and killed most of Congress, a history of executive orders, and overviews of how the "shadow government" works and where it operates.

   It all sounds very interesting but reads like typical conspiracy theory literature. The author contends we don't need a shadow government, but rather a sunshine government. He doesn't make much of a case in either direction. The book is rather lackluster and the absence of any footnotes, endnotes or bibliography make it frustrating. It is impossible to even use this book as a starting point to continue research about the topic.

   It was a fun read, but the last third of the book is the actual texts of three executive orders which led to the creation of the agencies that comprise the shadow government and its predecessors. If you like to read legal code then you will like this, otherwise it is rather dry. The space could better have been used more carfully debate the need for a shadow government on a point by point basis, or omitted to reduce the price of the book.




2. What I like about this book is how the author doesn't just speculate but cites his sources, like the New York Times, Washington Post, and federal laws. Especially interesting were pages 133 and 134, where the author quotes the exact section of federal law that allows declaration of martial law by local military commanders without presidential authorization. The author does the same with laws allowing the seizure of radio and TV stations, confiscation of private property, and detention of citizens without a warrant in cases of national emergency. (What is a national emergency? Whatever the president says is a national emergency.) Helms reproduces the entire text of executive order 9066, issued by President Roosevelt in 1942 to keep Japanese-Americans in detention camps until after World War II. That order was twice upheld by the Supreme Court, and a future president could use the same order to hold another group of Americans in detention camps whenever that president declares a "national emergency".

   The quotes from Oliver North's testimony to Congress in 1987 about the "Rex84" plans for handling national emergencies was frightening. Some people in Washington act like the Constitition and Bill of Rights is a problem they have to overcome.

   The subject of this book is like dying, the thought of it is so scary that many people won't be able to think about it rationally. But Helms raises many good points and cites the relevant parts of the laws that make the "shadow government" possible.




3. Before reading Helms's book I knew little about Executive Orders and nothing about the feds' Continuity of Government plans in the event of a severe national crisis (e.g., a WMD attack on Washington, D.C.). Now I know why. If these topics aren't discussed in high-school civics classes, it might be because this stuff is too scary to teach kids if your goal is to indoctrinate them with the notion that the American government is still strongly pro-freedom. In addition, a lot of the information is highly classified, although the outlines are laid out clearly (and many of the blanks filled in) by Helms.

   Martial law isn't a pretty prospect, but contingency plans for it have been in development for decades. How bad can things get? Think of FDR's Executive Order 9066, which authorized (without evidence of any wrongdoing) the internment of innocent Japanese-Americans during World War II -- then multiply by 10 or so, as "Rex 84" (a contingency plan based on a FEMA exercise authorized by Reagan), would have done. Meanwhile, selected federal officials would be sent to manage the crisis from the confines of a classified FEMA facility at Mount Weather, Virginia (where many are currently sent on rotation).

   Helms discusses the history of executive orders, the growth of FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency), how and why information gets classified, how the Shadow Government does business off the books, the military's plans for continuity of leadership and its relocation shelters, militarized law enforcement, and subcontractors of the Shadow Government.

   Although conspiracy buffs will eat this stuff up, Helms's objective reporting sets him apart from those who don't require much evidence or who lack strong journalism skills. "Inside the Shadow Government" is responsible, well-researched, documented (you can read some of the most far-reaching executive orders yourself in the book's lengthy appendix) -- and riveting. What a sobering eye-opener!

5 comments about Direct Action: A Covert War Thriller.

1. This is a pretty good read. Its got a ton of detail about covert operations, spy devices, and the intelligence apparatus to make you feel like this is what really goes on. The story line is pretty good, too. It is more than slightly annoying that the authors' political views are so obviously on display.



2. "Direct Action" is so heartpoundingly real it might as well be
   virtual reality. This book is a powerful page-turner that provides so much inside info that you feel you are right there with Tom Stafford and his buddies, every minute of the journey. If you're curious about all the dirty little secrets behind counter-terrorism and how difficult it is to do your job if you are CIA or ex-CIA, then this book is a must read. What fascinated me most was the incredibly accurate details of the locations in Paris, descriptions of exactly what they ate and drank, the restaurants, the clothes, the disguises and how they go about capturing their prey. Weisman writes about all of it in depth and so well, that you're always kept wondering what is truth and what is fiction. Yet with all of this, he still keeps the action at a breakneck pace.



3. A friend recommended a novel to me that I probably would have overlooked without his advice... Direct Action by John Weisman. A good espionage thriller...
   
   Tom Stafford is a former CIA officer who quit the agency when things became far too bureaucratic for his liking. The private firm he works for has uncovered an al-Qaida terrorist who has been a mystery figure to everyone who has tried to find him in the past. When they bring this to the attention of the CIA, they are inexplicitly told to back off. What makes this even more frustrating is that the terrorist is launching a suicide bombing plot involving designer backpacks and undetectable explosives. Unless this is stopped and the explosives analyzed, all the preventative measures in place around the world will be rendered moot. An unusual mix of private contractors with shadowy pasts and mixed loyalties have to come together to flush out the terrorist, find the explosives, and steer clear of whatever powers in the CIA are preventing them from doing what's right...
   
   Weisman writes with the perspective of someone who has spent plenty of time in the world of covert actions. The plotline of the story is meshed into real CIA personalities and activities, so it's often a little difficult to draw the line between what's story and what's actual history. He also blacks out certain names and activities in the book, much like you'd see in a declassified document. It may sound a little hokey, but it works well to make the writing feel even more real.
   
   Prior to this read, I hadn't even heard of Weisman. Now he's moved into my "so what else has he written" list... A good read to allow you to escape for a few hours...



4. This book made it past the censors and yet gives the layman an inside look at the frustrations for operations personnel in the CIA. While the detail can bog you down in the first few chapters, it's well worth it as you move through the book. Finally a book that exposes the political correctness that has hog tied our operatives in the field.
   Well thought out; detailed and true to life senarios.



5. This novel painfully points out the problems with the CIA during the terms of Directors such as Webster, Gates, Woolsey, Deutch and George Tenet. Seasoned intelligence professionals left the agency in droves or were forced to retire. Directives were issued that in effect prevented the clandestine service from spying. Positions were filled by individuals few of whom had the experience, ability or inclination to recruit agents to spy for America. Tom Stafford, a former CIA case officer, can't stand how things have deteriorated. He joins up with a group of former CIA agents who now are independent contactors calling themselves the 4627 Company. This group contracts projects that the rather impotent CIA would not be capable of handling. This plot centers around a genius terrorist bombmaker who has miniaturized parts so they can be hidden and carried undetected onto to commercial aircraft. This is really an almost impossible to put down read. My only complaint is that there were at least ten pages where portions of the text were blacked out as though by a censor. I find that rather disconcerting. Plenty of espionage tips and tricks. And plenty of excitement as they hunt down and terminate the enemy.

5 comments about Jessica Z..

1. I enjoyed this book from start to finish. I highly recommend this book & can't wait for his next book. In our post 911 world, the story was realistic & interesting. I didn't want to put it down until I was finished.



2. Jessica Z is well written. The plot is tight, the characters have depth, and the dilogue is witty. All said, this is a fun book and I'd recommend it to anyone.



3. The author does a great job of capturing a woman's voice, and offers a depthful look at the U.S. as though it were a Middle Eastern state - threats are ever-present and life goes on. He's particularly good at examining relationships, and I absolutely adored the sisters'. Jessica Z made me laugh out loud and cry in the span of 2 pages. A very good read.



4. In a trenchant view of the near-future, Jessica's story unfolds easily against the charged backdrop of terrorist-besieged San Francisco. Adrift in an ambiguous relationship with sweet but safe Patrick, who lives upstairs, Jessica seems to want something more. Before long she meets Josh, a mysterious and seductive artist, who becomes a central and unsettling force in her life. Her erotic awakening begins when she finds herself drawn into his world. Caught between these two men, Jessica explores the boundaries of love and lust and opens up to a fuller knowledge of herself.
   
   In Jessica Z, Klomparens creates not a portrait of a woman, but a woman - fleshy and real. Through smart dialogue and beautifully rendered insecurities, we come to know Jessica intimately, and we see shades of ourselves reflected in her. Her story is well written and easily told.
   
   The narrative is taut with the heightened anxiety of terrorist threats, as well as the mystery and danger of Jessica's new relationship. Yet it skillfully layers this raw emotion with a counterpoint of clarity and tenderness. Jessica's moments of real insight, when they come, are arresting in their stillness and simplicity, and they stand in stark contrast to the overall tone of the book. And just like in real life, they are fleeting.
   
   Klomparens gives us a tightly-constructed plot full of great dialogue and incisive wit. It's smart, funny, and impossible to put down. Bravo!



5. This is an engaging novel; the story really draws you along. I was particularly struck by two elements in this novel. The first was the relationship of the sisters. I was truly touched by their closeness. The second element was the story line regarding lithography. I thought this was an extremely creative depiction of an artistic process. It made me want to see the finished work in person.
   
   This book is certainly worth a read.

No comments about Terrorism and Counterterrorism (2nd Edition) (Penguin Academics).

5 comments about A Secret History of the IRA.

1. I didnt like this book at all.First of all, when the author chose the title Secret History he wasnt kidding. There's just to much secret history in this book is exhausting to read it all.The author just gives too many details that is hard to follow who's who and who is following what or who.I know Irish history is complicated by nationalism, religion and a lot of other things but the author just goes trhu so many histories and details that you feel the need to take a breather once in a while.I felt overwhelmed by this book.



2. Ed Moloney, amazingly, tapped sources deep within the IRA and Sinn Fein command structures to uncover the real story - at least from a Republican point of view - of the birth of the Good Friday Agreement. If even half of what Moloney says in the book is true, Gerry Adams might be one of the most skilled, clever politicians of our time. The book certainly suggests that Mr. Adams and elements in the IRA have not been fairly credited for their roles in negotiating a "peace" in Northern Ireland that seems to be holding eight years on.
   
   Only a minimal understanding of "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland is necessary as Moloney gives lots of good background information about the history of the IRA, the rise of the Provisional IRA and its transition from terror organization to a something of a "legitimate" political organization. Moloney does not glorify the IRA or justify its actions, but gives it due credit (at least certain of its members) for kick-starting a peace process which has eased centuries of sectarian strife.
   
   How the IRA moved from an uncompromising demand for a unified (socialist republic) Ireland, to be won by armed struggle, to acceptance of a divided island (albeit one more responsive in the North to the needs of its Catholic/Republican/Nationalist citizenry) is what this book is really about. That this major shift in IRA policy came about due to the actions of one of the group's (former) hardliners is utterly fascinating.
   
   Anyone that is interested in Irish politics or history - or even politics generally - should read this book!



3. I finally visited Ireland a couple of years ago. The typical American seeking their Irish roots. On my mother's side her Irish ancestors are from the South and on father's side from the North. His ancestors are Scots-Irish.
   What was very interesting was my tour of Northern Ireland where the "Troubles" were fought. The murals were an eye-opener.
   What was really noticeable was the difference of economies between a now prosperous Southern Ireland compared to a lesser economy of Northern Ireland. You knew a war must have been fought here. My tour was one of the first for vistors since the "Troubles" ended and I was told Northern Ireland had very much improved since then. This gave an idea of how much the Northern Ireland had lagged behind the rest of the country.
   I desired to learn more about the "Troubles" and this book certainly provides an understanding about the early history of Northern Ireland and the IRA. This is a serious read and may not be the definitive book about the IRA yet it could be.
   The author lived there during the "Troubles" and was an active reporter researching and interviewing many of the participants of the IRA and others. This is different from a lot of history books as many of these events are first hand accounts of the parties involved.
   I especially found the glossary of terms, chronology, printed documents and information about the personnel very helpful in understanding the "Troubles".
   The author attempts to present a fair and balanced view of the "Troubles" but this is the secret history of the IRA. He seems to tell it like it was but does not label the IRA as terrorists.



4. the degree of knowledge the author has acquired on the workings of this secret organization is remarkable.



5. According to Ed Moloney's 2002 book, the real hero behind the Good Friday Agreement that ended the Troubles of Northern Ireland a decade ago was not John Hume, David Trimble, or anyone else who claimed a Nobel Prize for his efforts. It was Gerry Adams, president of Sinn Fein and de facto head of its terrorist arm, the Provisional IRA.
   
   Even as Adams talked tough and consolidated power from within, "The Secret History Of The IRA" depicts him reaching out to the British power structure and Irish leaders down south, the final fruit of which would be the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. Adams' methods brought peace, Moloney reports, however ruthless, deceptive, perhaps even treacherous.
   
   Pressed by an IRA leader about his talk of peace, Adams is said to have replied: "Your problem is that you mind too much about the lies." Adams himself had no such compunctions.
   
   It's a real statement of Adams' worth as a human being that even an ostensibly positive account of his career, as "Secret History" undeniably is, winds up painting him as a homicidal rubbish pile.
   
   When Protestant troublemakers ran riot through the Catholic district of Ballymurphy in West Belfast in 1969, Adams was there holding his IRA comrades at gunpoint, determined to see the hated foe exact maximum damage on an innocent population and thus radicalize them.
   
   As he rose through IRA ranks, he lined up in his sights fellow leaders who read the winds and talked about cease-fires and negotiations, challenging their bona fides and kicking them out. All this time he secretly pursued negotiations himself.
   
   When a shipment of arms meant for the IRA sailed in from Libya in 1987, British authorities swooped in, informed unquestionably by a high-level IRA source. By this time, Adams's negotiations were getting results, and he no doubt would have had his hands full controlling a highly-armed base of followers. Moloney dances around the obvious contention, that Adams himself twigged the Crown to keep his initiative alive.
   
   Moloney dances around a lot of things in his book, including chronology and sources. His footnotes are so sketchy, referring repeatedly to unnamed IRA members and former members, to make them pointless. He knows his subject, and presents the IRA fairly, if at times a bit too sympathetically. I can't fault his viewpoint, but his perspective seems off: By crediting Adams with so much, he shortchanges other players like Hume and almost entirely ignores the biggest prod to Adams' deradicalization: As violence continued, the IRA grew more hated in counties both North and South.
   
   Adams' journey seems in hindsight a natural response to this, by someone whose purpose in life centered always around himself. If the Irish are Europe's African-Americans, Adams is the Catholic Al Sharpton, engendering divisions and ignoring the human cost.
   
   Moloney might disagree with me on this, but his book, in its obtuse, disconnected way, makes a similar case.