Inside Terrorism is perhaps the only book on the subject that covered so much. Though has space to update is require reading for the topic.

I purchased this book for school and it came in great condition for a great price.

This is an excellent book for understanding a particular type of terrorism -- extreme violence by radical groups like Al Qaeda, the PLO, white supremacists, Basque separatists, and others in which the purpose of violent attacks is to gain media attention as a way to advance a political agenda. Hoffman suggests terrorism is sometimes effective if the violence resonates with an aggrieved group, but he notes that the media effect is often mixed because most people are opposed to killing and destruction. And he makes a case that for most terrorist groups operate under a long term disadvantage. His thorough treatment covers a broad spectrum of groups while being fair and unbiased despite the pejorative term "terrorism". And he offers an intelligent exploration of this term itself.

My problem with Mr. Hoffman's analysis, however, is that he sees terrorism as violent politically-motivated crime by extremists seeking publicity. In contrast, I think of terrorism as "violence against individual rights" in which a "right" is a power to act in the future which others acknowledge beforehand. Hoffman sees terrorism as a type of crime; in contrast, I see crime as a type of terrorism. It's a different way of looking at the problem. I think terrorism is a much broader problem encompassing three types -- crime, tyranny, and foreign terrorism. Hoffman's ultimate terrorist might be Osama bin Laden; mine is Hitler. I think issues like media attention and political purpose should be largely irrelevant in understanding terrorism.

Getting the definition right is important in my view because it affects how we fight and prevent terrorism. Experts like Mr. Hoffman generally see terrorism as a problem for governments and police forces and paramilitary forces, and he advises government officials on how to fight such radicals. In contrast, I think our own government can sometimes become the terrorist when trying to fight terrorism. So I think Hoffman is attacking only one part of a triangular problem. I think we have to prevent all three types of terrorism.

For example, government fights air piracy by frisking every airline passenger. It's trying to prevent one type of terrorism (air piracy) by committing another (tyranny against citizens). Government treats us like criminals about to steal or blow up an airplane without specific evidence, and this violates the idea of presumption of innocence. The Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, but these rules have been violated. Passengers consent to this frisking because we think it's necessary to safeguard everybody and we don't think there are better ways, but I think there are much better strategies than frisking (although I usually enjoy being frisked by guards of the opposite sex).

Frisking may sound like a reasonable violation of our rights, but consider how government has tried to fight terrorism. It reads our e-mails. It wiretaps our phones. It studies our internet search histories. This is essentially espionage on private citizens with few safeguards for privacy. It's a pattern with democracies that when attacked by radical groups, they metamorphose into more authoritarian regimes (examples include Chile under Pinochet, Philippines under Marcos), and government usually wins its war while citizens suffer from curfews, loss of privacy, confiscations of property and so forth.

What I'm saying is that the problem of terrorism is much bigger, but solvable. In my book "Common Sense II: How to Prevent the Three Types of Terrorism" (Amazon) I advocate a tough highly controversial strategy which can even prevent smuggled nuclear bombs but the changes I propose are so substantial that they require a Second Constitutional Convention. People must act like real citizens, not apathetic political zombies like most Americans today, and protect other citizens when government becomes tyrannical, and I show how this can happen. And my method will thwart extremist groups much more effectively than any method Mr. Hoffman proposes and I challenge him to debate the merits of my strategy.

Hoffman's book is an excellent guide for people who like the current arrangement and believe government is doing a good job in fighting its war on terrorism. It's an intelligent introduction to a complex subject for specialists. He deserves commendation for shedding light on one part of a complex problem. However, I urge readers to become their own experts on the subject, to become real citizens, to make up their own minds about how to fight and prevent terrorism. After all, aren't we the ones who suffer when it happens?

The problem with this book is that Hoffman is wrong.

It happens. We're human. Even experts like Hoffman make mistakes. Hoffman doesn't know how to fight or prevent terrorism. The book's title suggests a subtle appeal -- a terrorism expert divulging dark secrets, letting you the reader become an "insider" like Hoffman, like a pilot letting a wide-eyed kid have a quick glimpse of a 747's cockpit controls. But this book serves cross purposes: (1) Hoffman tries to impress fellow terrorism experts with his vast quasi-academic knowledge of terrorism (2) He promises the reading public an insider's glimpse into the secretive world of government officials fighting terrorism. These two purposes conflict: he's trying to be technical for experts, but non-technical for the public.

But the faults are deeper. Hoffman's first mistake is not understanding terrorism. He admits his lack of understanding by spending a confused chapter early on exploring different definitions of terrorism from various angles, but he's reluctant to declare a preference for one particular definition.

Hoffman's second mistake is seeing terrorism as only a government, military, and police problem. This mindset limits constructive thinking about this problem. The truth is that the problem of terrorism is bigger -- it's a citizens' problem. We're the ones who suffer when it happens. So citizens need to prevent it. The problem of terrorism, as I see it, is directly related to citizenship, but Hoffman fails to pursue this angle because of his constrained viewpoint as detail-oriented expert. Hoffman's assumptions keep him locked in a tight box when the solution is outside the box. His expertise is not totally worthless, however; there is a place within government and the military for people with his knowledge that may, indeed, help government officials cope with terrorism. Still, for citizens, Hoffman's shortsightedness dooms his book to being an irrelevant muddle.

And what is terrorism? It's violence against individual rights.

That's it. Notice how there's a lot less reading than Hoffman's first chapter.

Begin with my definition, think logically, and a solution will follow. My book "Common Sense II: How to Prevent the Three Types of Terrorism" lays out the logic. It's on Amazon & Kindle. My strategy will prevent all types of terrorism, including smuggled nuclear bombs. Hoffman's won't. My strategy is brief, rational, non-religious, written by a citizen for citizens, non-technical, tough. Everybody can understand it. Be prepared: there are some controversial ideas (one expert found it "bracing"). But my book solves the problem. It can protect America. Hoffman's effort is a confused tome for experts vying with other experts about minutiae and definitions and particulars; my strategy is plain talk from one citizen to another. Hoffman's book might persuade government officials to hire him for some dubious post; my book can save our lives. Read my book; you'll know instantly it's better than Hoffman's.

I challenge Hoffman to debate the merits of my strategy.

This is a well written and informative introduction to the world of terrorism. Due to the vastness and diversity of the subject it is difficult to really explore one facet of terrorism completely without making the work so long and detailed you lose your audience. In this book, the author doesn't delve too deeply into any one specific area but rather gives a good, concise overview of the recent history of terrorism and the groups who practice it. This is a great jumping off point for anyone interested in studying the topic more closely.

This book has a lot of information, however it is outdated due to many recent occurrences of terroism that has happened since this book dated back in 1996. Bruce Hoffman is a excellent author, please get the updated version, 2006.

Simply put, this should be the first book one gets when they approach terrorism. Every academic who has written anything about terrorism has quoted him. That should tell you something. If you want a more detailed review, read one of the many 5-star reviews. To the guy who gave this book 2-stars, where are you a student? If you had to use a dictionary then you shouldn't be studying this complex issue to begin with.

Other great books on the subject include but not limited to- Terrorism in Context- Crenshaw; Inside Al-Qaeda- Gunaratna; Ghost Wars- Coll; Origins of Terrorism- Reich. Anything by Robert Pape esp Dying to Win & Bombing to Win(this one isn't about terrorism but it's the best study of how effective aerial bombing campaigns are- very related I would say.)

I picked up Bruce Hoffman's book at the suggestion of an associate who knew of my interest in history and influences therein. Mr. Hoffman's experience and understanding have produced a treatment on the mind of the terrorist and terrorist organizations - both domestic and foreign - that is, in my opinion, unmatched. INSIDE TERRORISM will hold a permanent place in my library, and receives my highest recommendation.

Other Suggest Reading:

Ku Klux Klan America's First Terrorists Exposed (Shadow History of the United States)

Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

I found this book to be quite enlightening as well as facinating to read. Refusing to engage in the political rhetoric surrounding terrorism, the author, Bruce Hoffman, (an expert in counterterrorism at West Point as well as a professor at Georgetown)follows the evolution of terrorism as a means of calling world attention to forgotten or underpublicized plights of the disenfranchized in order enact political change, through what he terms the "internationalization of terrorism" where terrorists enact "major media events" by the targeting of symbols of power. He examines the refinement of terrorist tactics by the Palestinian organizations, and refutes the idea that terrorism is ineffective, pointing out how the Palestinian cause has gained worldwide recognition and (frequently) sympathy through the advertisement of their cause via use of terrorist events. He investigates the role of the media in this process, and develops the hypothesis that part of what has occurred leading to the current state of affairs is, like an addict, the terrorist organization needs increasingly horrific and intense events to gain the attention that will put it in the media spotlight. This is supported by how the news of "car bombings" in Bagdad start to sound like weather reports--because they are a daily occurance and fail to engender the level of horror and outrage that they should, and would have, just a few years ago. This is an excellent analysis of the historical developments that form the basis of present-day terrorism, and Hoffman is only able to do this by putting aside the rhetoric of "evil" which only confounds our capacity to understand and effectively address the threats of terrorist activity.

I found this book to be quite enlightening as well as facinating to read. Refusing to engage in the political rhetoric surrounding terrorism, the author, Bruce Hoffman, (an expert in counterterrorism at West Point as well as a professor at Georgetown)follows the evolution of terrorism as a means of calling world attention to forgotten or underpublicized plights of the disenfranchized in order enact political change, through what he terms the "internationalization of terrorism" where terrorists enact "major media events" by the targeting of symbols of power. He examines the refinement of terrorist tactics by the Palestinian organizations, and refutes the idea that terrorism is ineffective, pointing out how the Palestinian cause has gained worldwide recognition and (frequently) sympathy through the advertisement of their cause via use of terrorist events. He investigates the role of the media in this process, and develops the hypothesis that part of what has occurred leading to the current state of affairs is, like an addict, the terrorist organization needs increasingly horrific and intense events to gain the attention that will put it in the media spotlight. This is supported by how the news of "car bombings" in Bagdad start to sound like weather reports--because they are a daily occurance and fail to engender the level of horror and outrage that they should, and would have, just a few years ago. This is an excellent analysis of the historical developments that form the basis of present-day terrorism, and Hoffman is only able to do this by putting aside the rhetoric of "evil" which only confounds our capacity to understand and effectively address the threats of terrorist activity.

I live in Israel. We live with terrorism daily and I have been following the events worldwide in the news for many years.

This book does an excellent job of summarizing the history of various terror groups, their changing techniques, failures and successes.

HHG

I often hear about a "war on terror." What an oxymoron. We hear much propaganda, but no facts.

Israel, which is a state sponsor of terrorism, has yet to be prosecuted for its war crimes.

The nation of Israel started out as a terrorist state. It car bombed, letter bombed and assassinated British until England got up and left. Then, they started killing Palestinian leaders and driving them off their land.

Socalled Russian organized crime usurps by deadly force the oil and media industry in Russia. Putin, thank God, has thrown many of them in jail. The book "Red Mafiya" admits that all of these Russian gangsters are "juwish" who have their main base in Israel.

American politicians serve Israeli interest under threats by AIPAC and Juwish media. This is political terrorism.

People's careers, such as Mel Gibson, the late Marlin Brando and so on are terrorized into submission to Juwish power.

People cannot deny the holocaust in Europe or Canada, and soon in the U.S., without prosecution by Juwes.

Juwish terrorism of our political beliefs, of our careers, of our tax dollars, of our lives and so on, is the World's Foremost Problem.

In the wake of the 9/11 disaster a plethora of books has been published on the nature and structure of the terrorist threat. Some are quite good, but others are absolute nonsense. Interestingly, some of the best books on both terrorism and counter-terrorism predate 9/11 and were written before counter-terrorism became the cottage industry it is today.

This book by Bruce Hoffman in cooperation with the Rand Corporation was published in 1998 and remains one of the best books available on the nature of terrorism. Hoffman provides a useful and on the whole an accurate explanation of the differences between secular, religious, transnational, and state sponsored terrorism providing useful examples of each. He also provides a good deal of probably accurate information on terrorist motivations and operational procedures. Finally he was prescient enough to recognize that the phenomenon represented by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda represent an ideological movement rather than a structured organization. After four years of the so-called, `Global War on Terrorism' this fact is slowly sinking into U.S. Government circles. Hoffman only lightly touches on the related issue of the al Qaeda financial structures, but notes the relatively small amounts of money actually required for most terrorist operations.

As indicated Hoffman does not limit this book to Islamic religious terrorism but also delves into motivations and operations techniques of secular terrorism as well. Perhaps most importantly given the July 2006 Near-East crisis, he uses Hezbollah as an example of the dangerous nature of state sponsored terrorism. All in all a sound book that contains markedly better information on terrorism than many more recent books and reflects the fruits of sound scholarship.

Just for the record, I'm reviewing the 2006 edition of this book, so it is no longer as out of date as the previous edition. And it is a very interesting book. We learn definitions of terrorism, we see what terrorism is, how terrorists recruit, how many of them think, what some of them say, how they get publicity, how they take advantage of media opportunities ("Don't shoot, Abdul! We're not on prime time!"), and so on.

We also read about circumstances in which terrorists may decide that mass murder (involving huge numbers of deaths as opposed to spectacular but less deadly acts of terror) makes sense.

Can terrorist groups be defeated? Of course they can. Most of them do not last long. A few such groups do last for a while, especially if they get some support from one or more nations. But even these can be defeated.

Bruce Hoffman makes the point that while media coverage is essential for terrorists, the net effect of such coverage is mixed: audiences are eager to follow the exploits of terrorists, but much of the media coverage of terrorism is negative, and most of the audience is opposed to terrorism.

The author recommends patience and determination in the fight against terrorism. And I think that human civilization always has a chance against any terrorist foe. If not, the terrorists will, of course, destroy themselves along with the rest of us.

Terrorists often claim that their victory is inevitable. But it rarely is. After all, most terrorist goals are incredibly arbitrary. Without the use of violence, terrorists would rarely have any chance of even temporary success, and in the long run, they usually have no chance. Almost all terrorist groups are therefore at a big long-term disadvantage.

Still, I think we may be overlooking something here: what about those cases in which terrorism is not the first option of some greedy extremists? What about those rare cases in which it is a minor option of reasonable people?

For example, suppose some of us decided to try to accomplish some possibly dubious but possibly reasonable goal, such as the expansion of the Church of Latter Day Saints to 30 million members, or autonomy for Poles, Kurds or Tibetans. Would terrorism be our first choice? No. We would realize that our goals were not so arbitrary as to be impossible without violence. We'd be patient and slowly move towards success.

But now suppose that, with the Church of Latter Day Saints increasing in numbers, some nations, including the United States, decided on a controversial policy of genocide to get rid of all Mormons! Oops! Now what? Well, in that case, terrorism might well be one of several options for those trying to change such a strange and catastrophic policy. And in that case, with the goal of terrorism simply being to stop the genocide, the terrorist aims would be anything but arbitrary and dubious. I think it is always important to notice the difference between the wild actions of extremists and those of people who are merely trying to defend themselves. And I feel that many people, including some experts on terrorism, fail to emphasize this sufficiently. Even in this book, we see the author point out that in some cases (such as in South Africa), terrorism can help achieve goals. Hoffman does explain that in this case, the terrorist goals were very coherent and relatively reasonable, but he fails to emphasize the fact that without violence on either side, those goals were likely to be achieved! I think we also see a little confusion about the false similarities some people see in Jewish terrorism versus Arab terrorism. Much of the Jewish terror in the 1940s was indeed arbitrary, but at least it was in support of a goal (Jews getting human rights in the Levant) that was going to be achieved if neither side used any violence. Much of the Arab terror was also arbitrary, but it was in support of a very different goal, namely the permanent obliteration of human rights for Jews in the region. That goal had no chance of being achieved without violence. I think the author should have been clearer about such differences. After all, the former kind of terrorism has goals that are indeed likely to be achieved in the long run, and moreover, mere achievement of such goals is not much of a threat to society. The goals of the latter form of terrrorism have little chance of being achieved in the long run and constitute a great threat to everyone.

In spite of these minor complaints, I like this book very much. It is comprehensive and useful, and I recommend it.

I would have given this work 5 stars if it was a bit more up to date. I expect great things out of the new version slated to arrive in May 2006. One thing that I really like about this work is that it does not just focus of Mid-east terror, but looks at ETA, IRA, US Militia movements, RAF, and other groups as well. A very good historical background with some good insights about rationality and media exposure.

INSIDE TERRORISM is an astoundingly good book. I really love Bruce Hoffman's writing.

BUT...

....I'm currently reading an advance preview copy of the book by Osama Bin Laden's mistress, Kola Boof. It's called "Diary of a Lost Girl" and it's just shockingly good and interesting.

Why is no one telling us about this woman? Her portrait of Osama is so fascinating and her experiences with him are quite interesting. I can't put it down.

For history buffs this book is a very quick but good read. For those just starting forays into studies of terrorism this book should be in their library. Hoffman wrote small case studies about terrorist groups to their actions; from describing Aum Shinkrikyo's gas attack on Tokyo's subways, the PLO and the effect it had on international terrorism, to the insurgency/terrorist campaign in Cyprus (to name a few). Another minor yet unique portion I noticed was for those who are just want to know a definition for terrorism ---Hoffman provides in addition to his analysis. The book is very objective and tells the facts straight. As a person who is very interested in the politics of terrorism Hoffman gave me new insight into groups (such as white supremacists and militia groups), and actions (like attacks in Cyprus) that are not usually discussed in many terrorism books.

Dr. Bruce Hoffman, long regarded as an authority on terrorism, adds great insight through his book Inside Terrorism. Continuing on the good work done on the subject by Paul Wikinson and others at the leading terrorism institution- University of St. Andrews, Scotland- Hoffman illustrates for the reader the key components of terrorism and goes on to tackle very important and complex aspects of the subject.

This book is certainly a MUST READ for any serious study of terrorism.

A definite must-read for beginners. Hoffman discusses everything from "what is terrorism" to various major terorrist groups. The book progresses logically and reads well. It's broken up into subchapters and offers extensive endnotes for further reading, should you so choose.

Bruce Hoffman, long one of RAND's key terrorism-wallahs and an affiliate of St Andrews University has written an excellent book on a controversial topic.

There was a fair amount of literature on terrorism prior to September 11th and, my, but there's even more now. A lot of it was a load of old rubbish prior to September 11th and even more of it is now. Hoffman's book is a work of substance which in itself puts it ahead of much of the pack.

"Inside Terrorism" covers a variety of areas. It opens with a discussion about the lengthy (and continuing) debate that surrounds the issue of defining terrorism - an issue which has stumped everyone from academics to the UN. What and who exactly IS a terrorist? Hoffman doesn't provide a clear cut, definitive answer but he does provide clear coverage of what is framing the argument, along with some of the possible answers which are being put forward. Whether you consider this level of debate to be self-indulgent and ivory tower or not (as I increasingly do, interesting thought it is) it is important to know that the debate does exist and what it's all about as it goes to the heart of some real-life anti-terrorism policy making, especially with regard to multilateral attempts to curb terror groups.

Hoffman moves on to cover Post-colonial ethnic or nationalist terror groups, international terrorism, Religion and terrorism, Terrorism, Media and public opinion, Terrorist methods and mindsets and the potential future of terrorism. All in all, it adds up to a fairly comprehensive introduction to the subject. Some of Hoffman's conclusions aren't to everybody's tastes, but terrorism is an inherently controversial and hotly debated issue, it's the nature of the beast.

Overall, this is an excellent overview and introduction to the subject of terrorism. Certainly better than the recent work of Walter Laqueur. The newcomer to the subject would also be well advised to check out Christopher Harmon's "Terrorism Today" as well, along with Paul Wilkinson's "Terrorism and Democracy". Ken Booth's "Worlds in Collision" is an excellent collection of essays by various authors that is ideal for somebody with an interest in the post-September 11th world.

Hoffman's writing style is not immediately engaging (I found the book far more digestible on a second reading), but this is still an excellent work for the beginner. In a field that is both crowded and shallow, Hoffman has produced a book of genuine substance and for that he deserves credit.

Not having any bakcground in the history of terrorism, I found this book extremely informative. I learned a great deal about the development/evolution and history of modern-day terrorism,. Furthermore, I found the discussion of the various types of terrorism to be especially useful. However, the book seemed very redudant to me. I recommend this to whoever is looking for a brief overview of how terrorism has changed since its beginnings.

For the general reader, Hoffman provides probably the best introduction to terrorism from an historical perspective. It is instructive to view the tragic events of September 11th from that perspective. Terrorists' motives as well as their strategic objectives and tactical means have differed (sometimes significantly) over the centuries. Hoffman does a brilliant job of reviewing and explaining a wide variety of separate acts of terrorism. All terrorists (religious or secular) are extremists. Frankly, I continue to have problems with the term "fundamentalists" because so many historical figures now revered acted upon the most fundamental of principles for which they were prepared to die...and many did. Like heroism, terrorism is in the eye of the beholder. Case in point: those involved with the Resistance in occupied France during World War Two. To his credit, Hoffman presents the material with great precision but without bias. It remains for each reader to formulate value judgments. Especially now, this is a "must read" for those of us who struggle to understand events on a recent Tuesday.

In his book, Hoffman takes the time to explain the roots and framework of terrorism is detail. The motives and agendas of terrorists are analyzed and we get a very good picture of how international terrorism works as we even get a glimpse into the minds of such dangerous characters. Another book that explains the next step of terrorism with the reality of very dangerous and devastating nuclear terrorist attacks is the powerful thriller THE CONSULTANT by Alec Donzi.

Bruce Hoffman offers a fascinating and enlightening examination of the confusing nature of modern terrorism. I especially enjoyed the opening chapter on the toils of anyone trying to lay down a definition of the word "terrorism" itself. Overall, it is a must read for anyone trying to make heads or tails of today's "new-generation" terrorism. I strongly recommend it!