Terrorism and Homeland Security: An Introduction

The only real drawback is a minor one. It tends to read a little heavy sometimes. Give yourself some time to digest each piece before moving on and you will be OK.

Bottom Line: When you finish this book, you will have a clearer understanding of the concepts, motivations, and philosophies of not only terrorism, but also counter- and anti- terrorism, and some of the contemporary issues surrounding modern terrorism. Well Done!!


What a dilemma......!   October 17, 2006
Mr Bassil A MARDELLI (Riad El-SOLH , Beirut Lebanon)
14 out of 21 found this review helpful



When local governments prove lack of temerity and live in chattering fear from terrorists in their midst, there will be no measure for panic, and experience indicate that fear breeds atrocities.
Experience also indicate that terrorists atrocities do not remain localized, they tend to spread outside the borders.

The UN should leave no stone unturned until terrorism is defined.
If the UN took, in unison, immediate actions in the past century to quash the plots for terrorist's acts, many sad events on the turn of this century would have not been speeded up so sudden and hysterical.
But the UN remained weak by the `Veto' power.
It is amazing how the `super powers' sat on heaps of weapons delicately stored in their arsenals to be on the look out against each others, tiger vis-à-vis tiger, while the bugs were brewing to bug.

Certainly the chain of events leading to 9/11 was so odd they would have been more fitting the famous James Bond - Agent 007 movies.
But the unfortunate fact is that what happened was gravely true.

The USA is to blame because by remaining so passive in the past and by sitting put and lethargic when bloody acts looked them in the eye, America delivered the `wrong' message.
It is incredible how the American public was left aloof to know if the successive Administrations had been seriously handling, or gathering intelligence, about bloody acts around the world.
It is also incredible how the USA abdicated its responsibilities to the UN waiting in profound ignorance to see how the disasters from `petty' and `localized' wars in small countries will unfold.

We can all recall Jimmy Carter's famous smile (a precursor of inaction) and his inclination towards pacifism. (Rescue attempt of American Hostages in Iran that failed).

Despite Ronald Reagan's gifted articulation, his soft actions were no match to his hard words and the same pacifist messages were again delivered.
The USA must have taken better heed of what went `wrong' in small countries on this planet (Lebanon for example), not to stoop from the slightest incident (the attack, that killed 241 marines, on their compound located at Beirut Airport on October 23, 1983, for example). Immediately after this sad event, the USA pulled their forces out of Lebanon - scuttling away from important pressing responsibilities.
As World Power, the USA should not have been deceived!!!

Georges Bush senior daring reprisals looked pale, later on, when Bill Clinton weakened them by his impulse to deal with internal matters at home mixed what they feared to believe with what they dared not to believe. Despite short periods of `hopes' during his first term, Bill Clinton occupied the media for quite sometime bringing up the image that USA house is crumbling, at its weakest point, leaving a lot to be desired.

Mr White sees the definition of terrorism very difficult to formulate, and it gets more confusing within 'Homeland Security.'
Who should decide what is a terrorist act or otherwise a resistance struggle?
Are the Palestinians terrorists? Were Yitzhak Shamir and Menachem Begin terrorists or resistance?
Are Hizbullah terrorists and who should decide so? Were members of the French resistance terrorists?
Which signposts should support `a definition' to be recognized by all nations? Should references to certain groups in history be taken as signposts, and equated with current ones? And how soon will it be settled?
As long as there are inequities in the pending issues facing the UN there shall never be a universal definition.

Who should take the lead to define the legend `Terrorism' , the UN or the USA. This time, the UN seems to abdicate this responsibility to the USA. Our impression is one that the UN is playing the role of the Carrot and the Stick is relegated to the USA.

Perhaps this very dilemma that has been challenging the USA presidents in the last twenty years of the twentieth century until the beginning of this one, will also determine the shape of nations in our times.






A great read   August 13, 2007
Retired Law Enforcement
2 out of 3 found this review helpful

Dr. White, an international expert in the field of international terrorism has put together a great book to help the average reader who may be inundated with the "war on terrorism" put the problem in perspective. The book is presented in terms comprehensible to the average reader and is not a doomsday approach that many terrorism authors have today. This is a great read and allows a reader to fully comprehend the global problem we face without the rhetoric. Thanks Dr. White.


A must read for those combating terrorism.   March 9, 1999
Terrorism: An Introduction is one of the most comprehensive and informative works in print today. A must read for those in the business of combating terrorism.