Customer Reviews

The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Although this book received glowing reviews on the back jacket from the likes of Vincent Cannistraro and Robert Gates it is not only dull but offers little or no new information. The book is further marred by a lack of footnotes, putting a serious dent in the author's credibility. For example, Laqueur states in one chapter that a right-wing racist group in the US managed to obtain Stinger anti-aircraft missiles. This is something I would have like to check out but could not, because there were no footnotes. Even worse, contrary to the title of the book which talks about weapons of mass destruction, there is very little discussion of how terrorists would obtain or use weapons of mass destruction. The book reads like a college text on the ideology of terrorism. Fine for the ivory towers of academia but of little value in the real world. Save your money, this book is a dog. I would recommend Jessica Stern's "The Ultimate Terrorists" or William E. Burrow's "Critical Mass" both make more interesting reads and both HAVE footnotes. Sorry Walter, better luck next time.

I keep thinking I've fread a different book than the ones that other people review. The History of Terrorism is one of those books. This book was fantastic, and it suffered from few to none of the problems attributed to it below.

I admit to being baffled by one other review in particular. Being fairly well versed in Baader-Meinhoff lore, and I couldn't find a single un-superficial problem with Laqueur's account of them, although I did like Laqueur's 1987 book "The Age of Terrorism" better than this book as far as the Red Army Faction goes. But these are small potato problems, and don't lead me at all to the conclusion our German friend had. I think it very significant that he did not bother to note a single "innacuracy".

The other criticisms are either utterly beside the point or approaching the absurd. The worst were the spurious definitional demands. Until it was taken up by dogmatists, terrorism clearly meant non-state, irregular violence. It was only the needs of left-rhetoric that expanded the view of terrorism to include what states do, which intelligent people might think is called "war" and "repression". I can think of no reason to include The US and Isreal except for dogmatic purposes: if we were to include Isreal, why would our German friend not include Cuba? The clear answer is this is an ideological agenda and not a serious rejoinder for an expansive notion of terrorism. Essentially, the other reviewer doesn't like the US or Isreal from political contacts and is saddened from a lack of political agenda on the part of Mr. Laqueur.

And if by some possibility our other reviewer friend does not mean some simple anti-American or anti-Isreali bias, then his main problem is that this book is an American writer writing from an American perspective on terrorism. Contrary to what mister Colberg believes, it is not a crime to have an American perspective.

The last point is most substantive, and wqhere Mr. Laqueur is most right and his other rewviewer is most wrong- the vast majority of terrorists throughout ages have clearly been unremarkable people. This is what makes the phenomenon so interesting- the notion that terrorism is part of some corner in human nature. I give to you the 19 unremarkable folks who took down the World Trade Center as an example. I don't think our other reviewer friend realizes quite how well Joseph Conrad defined the standard terrorist or why his characterization has survived so long in the minds of people who think about terrorism.

This was a fine book. Please buy it.

This book is little more than a rehash of high-profile terrorist attacks in the 20th century with very little insight into the forces that inspired them. Mr. Laqueur covers the gambit from the far right to the far left, with some discussion of the American "survivalists" and the "eco-freaks" that will go to any length to drive their points home. Laqueur seems more comfortable dealing with the Far Right extremists, as his research seems to be strongest in this regard. He seems on shaky ground when dealing with environmentalist terrorism, unsure of the various splinter groups that have adopted extreme actions in recent years.

His digressions into the literature that may have inspired such groups seem absurd at times, talking about James Bond supervillains and noting Edward Abbey's The Monkey Wrench Gang, which was a dark comedy on environmental terrorism. However, he discusses more pertinent books such as The Turner Diaries, which supposedly inspired Timothy McVeigh in attacking the Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

Probably the best chapter is Terrorism and History. Again, there is nothing new but he provides a good encapsulation of terrorism down through the centuries, noting the historic origins of suicide bombings which have sadly become the favored tactics of extreme Islamicists today. He ends by delving into the apocalyptic potential of terrorists should they get their hands on nuclear, chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction, but there is nothing very solid here. More of the doomsday scenarios we have grown accustomed to.

What I found sorely lacking was any attempt to deal with the political conditions that have given rise to the current wave of terrorism, such as the United States' and Britain's overextending foreign policy. Instead, the book is really nothing more than a collection of newspaper stories that will provide the reader with a general survey of terrorism and its threat to American foreign policy.

For those readers wanting a survey of modern terrorism and its possible courses of development, this book will suffice. The New Terrorism presents a well-researched case that the intent of modern terrorists may increasingly be to simply cause death and damage. The author's inclusion of the criminally insane within his definition of terrorism is simultaneously disputable and thought provoking. However, the book does a poor job in thoroughly exploring the concept of WMD terrorism. This, in conjunction with organizational problems and some of the author's style choices, should place this book somewhere other than the top of potential reader's buy lists. Jessica Stern provides a far better alternative in her "Ultimate Terrorists."

Its always a pleasure to read a Walter Laqueur book, not only are you promised a well written book but some interesting discussions.

In this book he discusses terrorism and the Arms of Mass Destruction. Something that I am sure is coming but not fortunately not yet.

The problem with weapons of mass destruction is that chemical warfare is not very effective. Biological is unclear. No one has done much in it and it can effect everyone. Nuclear is probably out of the reach of a terrorist organization unless it can steal a bomb. What response would a nuclear blast give if released? Who knows? Look at the response that 911 caused.

Anyway to use nuclear weapons you need a safe house to keep them. Once the authorities know you have one they will be looking for it. You also probably need a few. One to blow up to show that you have a bomb and can use it. Another to maybe use. If they use it what would be the result?

Not to say a terrorist who wants a bomb is not be feared as it has been stated, "I don't fear a person that wants many nuclear bombs but I do fear the person that wants only one bomb."

Interestingly Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda are not mentioned at all although he was already active. The book just came out just a bit to early in 1998.

One point I wished he had discussed more, is what motives would a terrorist organization have to use such weapons. Many countries today have such weapons and yet they don't use them. Maybe terrorist would be similarly affected for example before 911, the leaders of al Qaeda discussed but rejected attacking a nuclear power station as a target. The reason is that it would have a unclear result. It was seen as too dangerous.

Anyway in this book we are given some interesting history and is certainly a good read.

If you read only one book on terrorism, make sure it's not this one - to change the statement made by former CIA director James Wollsey somewhat. The list of shortcomings of this book is so long that it'd hardly worth the effort to mention them all here - see also the other reviews.

The information in this book doesn't appear to be very thoroughly researched (e.g. I am German and a lot of what Mr Laqueur write about what he calls the Baader-Meinhoff gang - which is actually only the first generation of the RAF - is simply wrong). What's more, it is amazingly superficial. How can you for instance reject the claim that terrorist are "unremarkable people" (Maxwell Taylor and Ethel Quayle in "Terrorist Lives") by quoting Joseph Conrad, a novelist? Mr Laqueur only needs to look at studies on e.g. Nazi death squads to see how those people who killed thousands of Jews in fact were what you'd call unremarkable people. On and on goes the list of shortcomings.

On top of that, to make a political statement, Mr Laqueur's definition of what terrorism is excludes states like Israel (with a long history of state-sponsored terrorism) and the US itself (ditto - take for instance the US war against Nicaragua which, according to the international Court of Law, was pretty much state-sponsored terrorism). One could at least expect that an author who examines terrorism would look at all the different meanings the word "terrorism" has - as the ruler of Syria said the other day those Palestinian terrorists are freedom fighters for him. One might reject that but it has to be mentioned in a book which claims it is dealing with terrorism.

As a practicing Odinist, I find this book to be extremely persecuting. Because of this author, and many like him i might add, many people are misled to think that all Odinists are White Supremacists, which just is not true. I think authors, like this pud, should be more wary in there choice of words and make it known with even the vaguest acknowledgement that a small faction of Odinists is of an Aryan mentality. I had to say my piece in defense of all my indiscriminate Odinist sisters and brothers in the world, so farewell.