Having read this, not sure what to call it, in 2008 in retrospect this writing has not proved valid. To charecterize bin Laden as "distinguished" one wonders how the author would define Joe Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Idi Amin etc. Bin Laden has a "passion for martydom" seems easy enough to accomplish yet he has avoided "martydom" for more than 10 years. "Bin Laden has survived by the grace of God ... just as Iraq's Saddem Hussein has kept his regime intact". AHH on second thought...

To compare this terrorist with the heros of the American Revolution is pure drivil. Who were the suicide bombers in 1776? Bin Laden started the jihad because american military were stationed in Saudi Arabia. Why where they there? Because bin Laden was trying to overthrow the Saudi government. This book is not worth 5 minutes of your time.

Michael Scheuer wrote an excellent, eye-opening treatise on the mindset of bin Laden and his camp. Indeed, it not only explains their thinking but also is a psychological exposure of the evolution of a a well-raised and kind man into a fanatical extremist. The comparison with American revolutionary heroes - John Bunyan, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine - shows that the state of righteous passion is treacherous, for it can easily advance from good into evil. Thus, we read that early in his life those who knew him described him as kind, humble, compassionate and gracious, while others saw him grow into a messianic zealot. Anyone wanting to understand the angry mind of the Arabs and the Islamic world should read what Scheuer enumerated as bin Laden's views of his foes and what he accuses them of: Islam's 1400 years of defensive struggle against the crusading worshippers of the cross; western atheism and barbarism in wars; the economic sanctions against Iraq and the starvation of its children, and so on. It is easy to see how an ill informed and opinionated mind can be beckoned into vengeful and retaliatory rage. Quickly, the eruption of explosive fear will create visions of an infidel predator or of the menacing claws of a hegemonic demon. Quickly also, the self-deception of divine inspiration can evoke Allah's order to slay the pagans wherever they can be found. All this can readily be seen as the derailment of a devoted, passionate and angry mind. Our leaders, who are charged with the handling of the enraged Islamic world will gain invaluable information from Scheuer's perceptive analysis. It is a must-read text for those who wish to avoid making tragic miscalculations.

A phenomenal perspective and one every citizen of the US should read (especially the idiots in the Bush Administration).

Fabulous book, well written, eye opening. Every Christian in America needs to read this Scheuer book. The future is frightening, and Scheuer explains why in no uncertain terms.

Mr. Scheuer has rendered an invaluable service by writing this book. We have to understand what motivates al Queda in order to find a way to make peace with them... I'm three quarters of the way through the book and I wish there was some way to make every member of Congress and the Administration to read it. Whatever you think about the war in Iraq, you cannot help but learn some of the backstory that we in the West don't know about "radical" Islam and why our efforts there may be doomed to failure. My thanks to the soldier who recommended it to me.

While I did not read this book, I did attend a 1 1/2 hour lecture given by Scheuer at a local college. I found myself agreeing with the some of his conclusions, but found that he arrived at most of them for all the wrong reasons. I will give here a brief critique of his lecture.

1. Scheuer believes that militant Islam's grievances are valid (to some unspecified extent) and should be addressed. He suggested that the problems with Islamism stem in part from the Arab-Israeli conflict, but then, confusingly, explained that Islamic terror is a global phenomenon [true], citing as an example the Muslim terrorism against Thai Buddhists and the military coup there which recently transpired. Scheuer thinks the "clash of civilizations" would be mitigated if we ceased all support for Israel. Curiously, he thinks it would be desirable to let Israel pursue the harsh measures required to defeat terror without US intervention. But this is odd, coming from a man who thinks US support for Israel is one of the roots of the problem. Does he believe that US restraint of Israel is the problem, or does he think that US involvement with Israel, largely supportive, is the problem? In the lecture, Scheuer stated that America pussyfoots by trying to win "hearts and minds", and openly stated that militant Islam will require the same unambiguously decisive defeat that America inflicted on the Japanese. I don't entirely disagree with that conclusion, but then Scheuer criticizes Israel for being too harsh in its war against Hizballah. Scheuer accuses Israel of barbarously leveling buildings but ignores the thousands of Hizballah rockets that killed hundreds of Israelis. In other words, does Scheuer think that America was justified to exhort Israel to use "proportionate force" when dealing with Hizballah, or does he think Israel should have employed the same overwhelming force that he recommends the US employ in Iraq? Does he think that only the US is entitled to employ overwhelming force and that Israel alone should be prevented from doing so? Which is it?

2. Scheuer repeatedly made the analogy that Bin Laden is a modern incarnation of the Civil War's Stonewall Jackson. I find this fawning comparison to be ahistorical, morally equivalent, and almost offensive. Jackson was not a murderer. Jackson wore a uniform and actually led his men in battle. Jackson was simply a brilliant military commander, like many before and after him. Scheuer's analogy reminds me of a similar one by Yassir Arafat, who stated, "I am like George Washington". Patton was a brilliant tactical commander -- was he like Bin Laden, too?

3. Indeed, it seems that Scheuer ignores 1300 years of history. His analysis of global Islamic militancy starts, more or less, with Khomeini. While a case can be made (a difficult one) that Khomeini initiated a total change in the Islamic weltanschauung, this contention would require significant bolstering on Scheuer's part, given that Islamic conflict with the West hearkens back almost to its inception, and has been waged almost without respite ever since. It can be argued that our clash with Islam represents a discontinuous break from, say, the Ottoman clashes with Russia and Austria, or the Moor's conquest of Spain, or the Saracen invasion of Sicily, and so on -- but he does not provide that argument. Indeed, Scheuer's historiography, while glib and seductive, is rather amateurish and spotty. It doesn't seem to go further than his recommendation that America resuscitate the spirit of General Sherman -- a recommendation that, while not without its merits, is founded on a rather superficial historical comparison.

4. Scheuer's explanation for why (he assumes?) Bin Laden is alive was utterly unconvincing. "We would know if he was dead," he stated. When asked why Bin Laden has not seized the rich propaganda opportunity to taunt the West by making new video appearances, Scheuer asserted - incredibly - that Bin Laden does not desire to taunt the West. He contends, therefore, that Bin Laden does not relish propaganda opportunities. His is certainly an interesting theory, but not convincing in my view.

5. Scheuer characterized the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as "infantile". Scheuer fails to mention if there are any other conflicts around the world, or in history, that he regards as infantile. He apparently feels that calling the conflict "infantile" is helpful. Scheuer suffers from the disease of moral equivalency here, treating both sides as equally responsible for the conflict. Any recognition of Israel's peace overtures at the Camp David accords and at Oslo was absent.

6. Scheuer stated that no nation, including the US, has a "right" to exist. He did not explain this comment in greater detail, but by implication, he therefore believes that the last victor in a struggle is by definition, legitimate -- that is, that might makes right.

7. Scheuer dredges up the favorite bogeyman of the Left and of America-Last conservatives -- Neocons! He stated (and I quote) that "Neoconservatives manufactured the Islamic Caliphate." Given that the caliphate first appeared during 7-8th century Islamic conquest, I find his assertion hard to swallow. Love Neocons or hate them, it is hard to take Scheuer seriously when he makes comments so obviously absurd. In general, Scheuer claims that many of our current problems with Islamic militancy is our fault. He derides US foreign policy for supporting dictators, like Mubarak, but did not adequately address the alternative, in this case the Muslim Brotherhood. If not Mubarak, then what? Scheuer apparently believes that Muslims are justified in rioting around the world because of cartoons in a Danish newspaper. It is not clear how Scheuer would attack these difficulties -- should we stop publishing cartoons? Should there be censorship? Should we bow and scrape whenever Muslims are offended?

8. Scheuer neglects to mention that the US rescued Muslims in Kosovo, saved Shia and Kurds in Iraq, and helped Bin Laden's own Mujaheddin repulse the Soviet aggression in Afghanistan, and yet, somehow, asserts that we are still responsible for the (valid?) negative perception of the US among Muslims. He feels that terror will decrease if we take steps to make us more popular with terrorists.

9. Scheuer resigned from the CIA to protest the Bush Administration's handling of the War on Terror, or rather, its mishandling at the hands of the dreaded Neocons. But Scheuer does not explain why he opted not to resign under Clinton, who did not act to kill Bin Laden when he had the chance. Scheuer himself harshly condemns Clinton for that decision, but fails to explain why Clinton's errors did not merit a resignation but Bush's alleged errors do. This leads the listener to wonder if his resignation wasn't motivated by some mysterious personal reason. More to the point, if Scheuer has so much vitriol for the alleged mismanagement of the War on Terror by Neoconservatives, why does he also berate the Clinton administration for mismanagement -- an administration which did not contain Neoconservatives?

10. Scheuer derides the media's hand wringing and "whining" about the war, yet he himself, as the CBS "Terrorism Expert", seems part of the problem. I have not seen him forcefully take his own network to task (let alone the media as a whole) for glorifying failure, ignoring successes, and furthering its own demonstrably Leftist bias.

11. Scheuer decries President Bush and his alleged Neocon cabal for involving us in Iraq. Certainly, I would not argue his Presidency is free of mistakes. Yet Bush's decision was based on intelligence furnished not only by the CIA, but by the British MI5 and also French intelligence. If the intelligence made available to Bush was flawed, it seems unfair, in the absence of other details, to criticize the White House for its decision to go to war.

Some of Michael Scheuer's recommendations seem correct -- use overwhelming force, cease support for dictators, or jettison Europe, for example. But he appears to arrive at them via a twisted path of factual omissions and contradictions. Scheuer seems to suffer from a type of analytical schizophrenia, or cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, he adopts the rather Leftist positions that we are responsible for Islamic antipathy toward us, that Israel is the problem, that we have inflamed the Muslim world, and that Iraq has created more terrorists. On the other, he regards US military actions as timid. Indeed, Scheuer's lecture left me not only dismayed by his apparently romantic attachment to Bin Laden as an anti-hero, but wondering, simply, whether Scheuer himself contributed to the ineffectiveness of the CIA during his tenure. Until Scheuer can answer these and other questions, I will refrain from spending time and money on his books.

While I did not read this book, I did attend a 1 1/2 hour lecture given by Scheuer at a local college. I found myself agreeing with the some of his conclusions, but found that he arrived at most of them for all the wrong reasons. I will give here a brief critique of his lecture.

1. Scheuer believes that militant Islam's grievances are valid (to some unspecified extent) and should be addressed. He suggested that the problems with Islamism stem in part from the Arab-Israeli conflict, but then, confusingly, explained that Islamic terror is a global phenomenon [true], citing as an example the Muslim terrorism against Thai Buddhists and the military coup there which recently transpired. Scheuer thinks the "clash of civilizations" would be mitigated if we ceased all support for Israel. Curiously, he thinks it would be desirable to let Israel pursue the harsh measures required to defeat terror without US intervention. But this is odd, coming from a man who thinks US support for Israel is one of the roots of the problem. Does he believe that US restraint of Israel is the problem, or does he think that US involvement with Israel, largely supportive, is the problem? In the lecture, Scheuer stated that America pussyfoots by trying to win "hearts and minds", and openly stated that militant Islam will require the same unambiguously decisive defeat that America inflicted on the Japanese. I don't entirely disagree with that conclusion, but then Scheuer criticizes Israel for being too harsh in its war against Hizballah. Scheuer accuses Israel of barbarously leveling buildings but ignores the thousands of Hizballah rockets that killed hundreds of Israelis. In other words, does Scheuer think that America was justified to exhort Israel to use "proportionate force" when dealing with Hizballah, or does he think Israel should have employed the same overwhelming force that he recommends the US employ in Iraq? Does he think that only the US is entitled to employ overwhelming force and that Israel alone should be prevented from doing so? Which is it?

2. Scheuer repeatedly made the analogy that Bin Laden is a modern incarnation of the Civil War's Stonewall Jackson. I find this fawning comparison to be ahistorical, morally equivalent, and almost offensive. Jackson was not a murderer. Jackson wore a uniform and actually led his men in battle. Jackson was simply a brilliant military commander, like many before and after him. Scheuer's analogy reminds me of a similar one by Yassir Arafat, who stated, "I am like George Washington". Patton was a brilliant tactical commander -- was he like Bin Laden, too?

3. Indeed, it seems that Scheuer ignores 1300 years of history. His analysis of global Islamic militancy starts, more or less, with Khomeini. While a case can be made (a difficult one) that Khomeini initiated a total change in the Islamic weltanschauung, this contention would require significant bolstering on Scheuer's part, given that Islamic conflict with the West hearkens back almost to its inception, and has been waged almost without respite ever since. It can be argued that our clash with Islam represents a discontinuous break from, say, the Ottoman clashes with Russia and Austria, or the Moor's conquest of Spain, or the Saracen invasion of Sicily, and so on -- but he does not provide that argument. Indeed, Scheuer's historiography, while glib and seductive, is rather amateurish and spotty. It doesn't seem to go further than his recommendation that America resuscitate the spirit of General Sherman -- a recommendation that, while not without its merits, is founded on a rather superficial historical comparison.

4. Scheuer's explanation for why (he assumes?) Bin Laden is alive was utterly unconvincing. "We would know," he stated. When asked why Bin Laden has not seized the rich propaganda opportunity to taunt the West by making new video appearances, Scheuer asserted - incredibly - that Bin Laden does not desire to taunt the West. He contends, therefore, that Bin Laden does not relish propaganda opportunities. His is certainly an interesting theory, but not convincing in my view.

5. Scheuer characterized the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as "infantile". Scheuer fails to mention if there are any other conflicts around the world, or in history, that he regards as infantile. He apparently feels that calling the conflict "infantile" is helpful. Scheuer suffers from the disease of moral equivalency here, treating both sides as equally responsible for the conflict. Any recognition of Israel's peace overtures at the Camp David accords and at Oslo was absent.

6. Scheuer stated that no nation, including the US, has a "right" to exist. He did not explain this comment in greater detail, but by implication, he therefore believes that the last victor in a struggle is by definition, legitimate -- that is, that might makes right.

7. Scheuer dredges up the favorite bogeyman of the Left and of America-Last conservatives -- Neocons! He stated, and I quote, that "Neoconservatives manufactured the Islamic Caliphate." Given that the caliphate first appeared during 7-8th century Islamic conquest, I find his assertion hard to swallow. Love Neocons or hate them, it is hard to take Scheuer seriously when he makes comments so obviously absurd. In general, Scheuer claims that many of our current problems with Islamic militancy is our fault. He derides US foreign policy for supporting dictators, like Mubarak, but did not adequately address the alternative, in this case the Muslim Brotherhood. If not Mubarak, then what? Scheuer apparently believes that Muslims are justified in rioting around the world because of cartoons in a Danish newspaper. It is not clear how Scheuer would attack these difficulties -- should we stop publishing cartoons? Should there be censorship? Should we bow and scrape whenever Muslims are offended?

8. Scheuer neglects to mention that the US rescued Muslims in Kosovo, saved Shia and Kurds in Iraq, and helped Bin Laden's own Mujaheddin repulse the Soviet aggression in Afghanistan, and yet, somehow, asserts that we are still responsible for the (valid?) negative perception of the US among Muslims. He feels that terror will decrease if we take steps to make us more popular with terrorists.

9. Scheuer resigned from the CIA to protest the Bush Administration's handling of the War on Terror, or rather, its mishandling at the hands of the dreaded Neocons. But Scheuer does not explain why he opted not to resign under Clinton, who did not act to kill Bin Laden when he had the chance. Scheuer himself harshly condemns Clinton for that decision, but fails to explain why Clinton's errors did not merit a resignation but Bush's alleged errors do. This leads the listener to wonder if his resignation wasn't motivated by some mysterious personal reason. More to the point, if Scheuer has so much vitriol for the alleged mismanagement of the War on Terror by Neoconservatives, why does he also berate the Clinton administration for mismanagement -- an administration which did not contain Neoconservatives?

10. Scheuer derides the media's hand wringing and "whining" about the war, yet he himself, as the CBS "Terrorism Expert", seems part of the problem. I have not seen him forcefully take his own network to task (let alone the media as a whole) for glorifying failure, ignoring successes, and furthering its own demonstrably Leftist bias.

11. Scheuer decries President Bush and his alleged Neocon cabal for involving us in Iraq. Certainly, I would not argue his Presidency is free of mistakes. Yet Bush's decision was based on intelligence furnished not only by the CIA, but by the British MI5 and also French intelligence. If the intelligence made available to Bush was flawed, it seems unfair, in the absence of other details, to criticize the White House for its decision to go to war.

Some of Michael Scheuer's recommendations seem correct -- use overwhelming force, cease support for dictators, or jettison Europe, for example. But he appears to arrive at them via a twisted path of factual omissions and contradictions. Scheuer seems to suffer from a type of analytical schizophrenia, or cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, he adopts the rather Leftist positions that we are responsible for Islamic antipathy toward us, that Israel is the problem, that we have inflamed the Muslim world, and that Iraq has created more terrorists. On the other, he regards US military actions as timid. Indeed, Scheuer's lecture left me not only dismayed by his apparently romantic attachment to Bin Laden as an anti-hero, but wondering, simply, whether Scheuer himself contributed to the ineffectiveness of the CIA during his tenure. Until Scheuer can answer these and other questions, I will refrain from spending time and money on his books.

Are Islamists fighting us because of what we are, as George W. Bush contends, or because of what we do, as Michael Scheuer contends? Scheuer makes a convincing case for his position.

In the 2006 edition Scheuer has added material on pages 134 to 137 regarding the run-up to the war in Iraq. According to Scheuer, Douglas Feith's unit at the Department of Defense did issue reports "purport[ing] to document . . . 'cooperation' between al Qaeda and Iraq on a variety of issues" (p. 135). Scheuer contends that such claims were not well documented. But evidently Dick Cheney took such claims as being true. Pages 134 to 137 of this book should be read by all Americans who are interested in how we got into the war in Iraq.

The Scottish poet Robert Burns once said, "Oh would some power the gift give us, To see ourselves as others see us!

And in this day and age, the 'others' that really concern me include Osama bin Laden and the people in al Queda. This book does just that. It quotes bin Laden and associates to see what they are really saying rather than the quick thirty second news bite so favored by the news organizations when they can't find any blood to photograph.

This book takes bin Laden's statements, and in an interesting turn-about compares them with statements of a very similar nature made by Americans related to our revolution. He then goes on to show how bin Laden views the Americans not too differently from the way the American Patriots viewed England in 1776. (Strange how patriot or terrorist may be the same people depending on the eye of the looker.)

All in all, this is a very frightening book. It says that the anger from bin Laden is real, based on actual events, and not an isolated case, but spread throughout the Muslim world. Perhaps all Muslims would not be willing to go to the extremes to crash into the World Trade Center. It is clear however, that there are enough holding these views to provide the ocean in which the 'extremists,' 'religious fanatics,' 'terrorists,' 'guerrillas,' or 'patriots' can swim.

All in all, I rank this book as one of the three 'must reads,' anyone interested in what happens now must read. The other two are 'The 9/11 Commission Report,' and 'The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order' by Samuel P. Huntington.

There are a lot of reviewers of all three of these books who seem so rabidly angry at President Bush that they reject everything that these books have to say. I really like one review of 'Clash' who asked what a bunch of people living in a backward country like Afghanistan could possibly do to hurt the United States. That was before 9/11.

The Scottish poet Robert Burns once said, "Oh would some power the gift give us, To see ourselves as others see us!

And in this day and age, the 'others' that really concern me include Osama bin Laden and the people in al Queda. This book does just that. It quotes bin Laden and associates to see what they are really saying rather than the quick thirty second news bite so favored by the news organizations when they can't find any blood to photograph.

This book takes bin Laden's statements, and in an interesting turn-about compares them with statements of a very similar nature made by Americans related to our revolution. He then goes on to show how bin Laden views the Americans not too differently from the way the American Patriots viewed England in 1776. (Strange how patriot or terrorist may be the same people depending on the eye of the looker.)

All in all, this is a very frightening book. It says that the anger from bin Laden is real, based on actual events, and not an isolated case, but spread throughout the Muslim world. Perhaps all Muslims would not be willing to go to the extremes to crash into the World Trade Center. It is clear however, that there are enough holding these views to provide the ocean in which the 'extremists,' 'religious fanatics,' 'terrorists,' 'guerrillas,' or 'patriots' can swim.

All in all, I rank this book as one of the three 'must reads,' anyone interested in what happens now must read. The other two are 'The 9/11 Commission Report,' and 'The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order' by Samuel P. Huntington.

There are a lot of reviewers of all three of these books who seem so rabidly angry at President Bush that they reject everything that these books have to say. I really like one review of 'Clash' who asked what a bunch of people living in a backward country like Afghanistan could possibly do to hurt the United States. That was before 9/11.

This book is four years old in facts yet has a 2006 copyright. Is beneficial for someone not familiar with Osama bin Laden but little benefit for someone who has good backround knowledge.

This book is four years old in facts yet has a 2006 copyright. Is beneficial for someone not familiar with Osama bin Laden but little benefit for someone who has good backround knowledge.

This book came out after 9-11 and in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq invasion. First published with an anonymous author, only later did Michael Schurer claim responsibility for this incredible, insightful work. This book takes the reader into the lives of Bin Laden and other members of Al Queda and other Radical Islamic groups from their childhood days to the 21st century. Along the way, the author shows how events like the Afghan war, the Cold War, the UN mission in Somalia, and others affected the formation and evolution of Al Queda and related groups. The author specifically makes it a point of showing how the West, and the US specifically, is viewed through the eyes of Bin Laden and his followers.

One noteworthy subject contained in this book is the parallels drawn between Al Queda and the US Founding Fathers. There is a common perception that Al Queday and other groups like them are totally new phenomena in this world. Not so claims the author; many of the events and trends that mark the history and membership of Al Queda are also shared by the founding fathers. Some of these are as follows.

1. The Founding Fathers were by and large secular humanists. They all went to church, but none of them derived their livelihood from the ministry. Likewise, the Al Queda founders all had secular careers: engineers, doctors, lawyers, accountants, bankers, etc... few of them were mullahs. Yet both groups made allusions to God (Allah) in their propaganda, their goals, and in their speeches as a way to rally the masses.

2. The Founding Fathers were all well-educated white males, predominantly from wealthy land-owning families. Likewise, Bin Laden and those like him are mainly college-educated Arab males, predominantly from wealthy land-owning families. In both cases, the rebels were firmly in the upper-crust of their respective socieites.

3. The Founding Fathers by and large had successful careers within the British colonial administration, and were loyal to the British crown at first, and slowly switched sides during the 1770s. For example, George Washington was a soldier in the British military. Likewise, many of Al Queda's founders went to school in the West, worked in Western corporations, or held government posts in Western-supported governments. Only after US troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia did their allegiance change.

4. The American founding fathers came not just from the original 13 colonies, but from Europe itself, and other lands; Alexandar Hamilton was born in the Caribbean. Coming from various backgrounds and geographical origins, they came to know each other in the French and Indian Wars of the 1760's along the US - Canada border. Our founding fathers nearly all fought on the British side, against the French. Yet the continuuing presence of British troops on colonial soil eventually led to the colonists turning against their former ally. Likewise, the various Al Queda founding members came to know each other thru the Afghan War of the 1980s. Aided by the US, they fought and helped to defeat the USSR. Later, it was the presence of US troops on their religious homeland (Saudi Arabia) that led them to turn against their former ally, the US.

5. When the 13 colonies fought against the British Empire, the colonies were essentially ruled by small, white, Protestant, landowning male cliques. At that time, Britain was more democratic than the US in every sense of the word; women had more rights in Britian than in the colonies, slavery was already illegal, and Catholics had more rights. In essence, in the American war of independence, less free society defeated the more free society. Ironically, the US is more free and democratic than any of the Arab nations from which Al Queda draws membership. Does this parallel extend here to imply the US will lose the war on terror?

All in all, a very insightful and intriguing book. Well worth reading by any American or Arab.

This book came out after 9-11 and in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq invasion. First published with an anonymous author, only later did Michael Schurer claim responsibility for this incredible, insightful work. This book takes the reader into the lives of Bin Laden and other members of Al Queda and other Radical Islamic groups from their childhood days to the 21st century. Along the way, the author shows how events like the Afghan war, the Cold War, the UN mission in Somalia, and others affected the formation and evolution of Al Queda and related groups. The author specifically makes it a point of showing how the West, and the US specifically, is viewed through the eyes of Bin Laden and his followers.

One noteworthy subject contained in this book is the parallels drawn between Al Queda and the US Founding Fathers. There is a common perception that Al Queday and other groups like them are totally new phenomena in this world. Not so claims the author; many of the events and trends that mark the history and membership of Al Queda are also shared by the founding fathers. Some of these are as follows.

1. The Founding Fathers were by and large secular humanists. They all went to church, but none of them derived their livelihood from the ministry. Likewise, the Al Queda founders all had secular careers: engineers, doctors, lawyers, accountants, bankers, etc... few of them were mullahs. Yet both groups made allusions to God (Allah) in their propaganda, their goals, and in their speeches as a way to rally the masses.

2. The Founding Fathers were all well-educated white males, predominantly from wealthy land-owning families. Likewise, Bin Laden and those like him are mainly college-educated Arab males, predominantly from wealthy land-owning families. In both cases, the rebels were firmly in the upper-crust of their respective socieites.

3. The Founding Fathers by and large had successful careers within the British colonial administration, and were loyal to the British crown at first, and slowly switched sides during the 1770s. For example, George Washington was a soldier in the British military. Likewise, many of Al Queda's founders went to school in the West, worked in Western corporations, or held government posts in Western-supported governments. Only after US troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia did their allegiance change.

Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama Bin Laden, Radical Islam and the Future of America is a very good book.

What many people don't understand, is that Osama Bin Laden, Radical Islam, etc. depise not only the USA, the Jews and Israel... it is the Christians and Catholics of the world also.

The Christians and Catholics think they have nothing to worry about, that is not true. They are next on radical Islam's hit list.

More than 3 years after Osama Bin Laden and his gang attacked us we still are having to deal with his threats. We need a president who will not lose sight of our true enemies. After losing so many of our young men and women and spending so much money we are no safer than we were on 9/11!

What was the point?

Please vote for John Kerry.

I initially heard about this book through a friend. At first, I thought it was going to be another typical book about Islam and how all Muslims are terrorists. But no, I was pleasantly surprised. I'm not done reading this book yet, but so far, it's anything BUT what Americans hear about Muslims through President Bush. President Bush calls people like Osama, "FREEDOM HATING" ... come on now, American people, how IGNORANT can someone get?! What's even more sad is that many of you Americans actually hang on to every last word of Bush's and praise him as though he is GOD. Bush talks about being against abortion and valuing human life, yet what is it called going to Iraq and killing thousands of soldiers and civilians? Is that not called murder, but in a different sense?

Where do we draw the line between terror and non-terror? Why are Americans not called terrorists for funding Israel annually with 3 billion dollars, and helping them kill millions of Palestinians, yet Muslims who are tired of seeing their people killed daily are? And you want to talk about suicide bombers? The Palestinians are FORCED to do this because they do not have an army as big and powerful as the Israeli army.

Sadly, Americans will be in more danger, if this same president remains in office for yet another 4 years. He is a man so ignorant that he actually sincerely believes Osama has declared a jihad against Americans because he "HATES" freedom! It's more like the opposite: Osama WANTS freedom for Muslims and is tired of seeing them persecuted. What is happening to Muslims in the Middle East today is no different than the Holocaust, except this time, the Jews aren't the victims, the Muslims are, and many people are turning a blind eye.

Another important note, I have read the reviews and some of you say that you didn't like this book, because the author kept his name anonymous so thus, what he says shouldn't be considered credible. Obviously, you people are the same people who believe everything you hear on the news at FACE VALUE. During the time this book was published, Anonymous was still a senior U.S. intelligence official and thus, the Bush Administration forbide him to use his real name. It's not because he felt he could write anything and get away with it, without anyone knowing his name. If you're going to disregard a book and its credibility, please have more of a basis to disregard it, rather than your own ignorance of, "Well, he didn't write down his real name, therefore, I'm not going to read it."

Our world is slowly coming to an end, and if Bush doesn't get out of office [which, I must add, he ILLEGALLY forced his way into office - Gore was supposed to win in 2000], we are doomed as a society. Please people, get out of your state of ignorance. These "terrorists" are not freedom-hating. They simply want the same freedom we Americans have been endowed with. And you want to talk about terrorists? The American government is the biggest terrorist of them all. We attack any country that doesn't have a democratic government like ours and then claim we're "freeing" them. PLEASE! What would we all do if Sadam had invaded America and killed Bush, saying he wanted to FREE us?

It's time to wake up and see we're killing off our own people and with Bush in office, this jihad will continue and America will be more at risk for another terrorist attack. I recommend this book to any intellectual, open-minded person who is ready to know the truth about this war on terror. For all you people who don't meet those qualifications, go ahead and listen to your redneck president who believes these killings are all a part of Muslims being so "freedom hating."

I initially heard about this book through a friend. At first, I thought it was going to be another typical book about Islam and how all Muslims are terrorists. But no, I was pleasantly surprised. I'm not done reading this book yet, but so far, it's anything BUT what Americans hear about Muslims through President Bush. President Bush calls people like Osama, "FREEDOM HATING" ... come on now, American people, how IGNORANT can someone get?! What's even more sad is that many of you Americans actually hang on to every last word of Bush's and praise him as though he is GOD. Bush talks about being against abortion and valuing human life, yet what is it called going to Iraq and killing thousands of soldiers and civilians? Is that not called murder, but in a different sense?

Where do we draw the line between terror and non-terror? Why are Americans not called terrorists for funding Israel annually with 3 billion dollars, and helping them kill millions of Palestinians, yet Muslims who are tired of seeing their people killed daily are? And you want to talk about suicide bombers? The Palestinians are FORCED to do this because they do not have an army as big and powerful as the Israeli army.

Sadly, Americans will be in more danger, if this same president remains in office for yet another 4 years. He is a man so ignorant that he actually sincerely believes Osama has declared a jihad against Americans because he "HATES" freedom! It's more like the opposite: Osama WANTS freedom for Muslims and is tired of seeing them persecuted. What is happening to Muslims in the Middle East today is no different than the Holocaust, except this time, the Jews aren't the victims, the Muslims are, and many people are turning a blind eye.

Another important note, I have read the reviews and some of you say that you didn't like this book, because the author kept his name anonymous so thus, what he says shouldn't be considered credible. Obviously, you people are the same people who believe everything you hear on the news at FACE VALUE. During the time this book was published, Anonymous was still a senior U.S. intelligence official and thus, the Bush Administration forbide him to use his real name. It's not because he felt he could write anything and get away with it, without anyone knowing his name. If you're going to disregard a book and its credibility, please have more of a basis to disregard it, rather than your own ignorance of, "Well, he didn't write down his real name, therefore, I'm not going to read it."

Our world is slowly coming to an end, and if Bush doesn't get out of office [which, I must add, he ILLEGALLY forced his way into office - Gore was supposed to win in 2000], we are doomed as a society. Please people, get out of your state of ignorance. These "terrorists" are not freedom-hating. They simply want the same freedom we Americans have been endowed with. And you want to talk about terrorists? The American government is the biggest terrorist of them all. We attack any country that doesn't have a democratic government like ours and then claim we're "freeing" them. PLEASE! What would we all do if Sadam had invaded America and killed Bush, saying he wanted to FREE us?

It's time to wake up and see we're killing off our own people and with Bush in office, this jihad will continue and America will be more at risk for another terrorist attack. I recommend this book to any intellectual, open-minded person who is ready to know the truth about this war on terror. For all you people who don't meet those qualifications, go ahead and listen to your redneck president who believes these killings are all a part of Muslims being so "freedom hating."

Whenever the world is held in the grips of dramatic events, you can pretty much guarantee that around 50 percent of the press coverage concerning said events is going to be faulty. Reporters are humans like anyone else, and they too fall into patterns of overwhelming error inducing excitement and agreed upon misconception. This is very much the case concerning a lot of the reporting and analysis done on current War on Terrorism. A lot of it, in the opinion of this book's "anonymous" author, is absolute garbage. In this eye opening look at the enemies that face America, anonymous has presented a very different picture of the adversary. Through Our Enemies Eyes is a valuable book because it challenges the reader to look at the problem through their eyes, in order to better understand their motivation and tactics. Throughout the book we learn the depth of the Western misconception of Al-Qaeda and its dangerous consequences. We also learn, somewhat to my surprise, the extent of its international power and reach. Al-Qaeda did not emerge from the desert overnight, rather, it was an amazingly complex organization built with years of careful planning.

Anonymous begins with a somewhat startling comparison between American leaders such as Patrick Henry and John Brown to Osama Bin Laden. He is quick to point out that he does not consider these men equal, but he brings it up in order to better understand the extremist mindset. People look at John Brown with a sort of reverence, never mind the fact he was also a fanatic and cold blooded killer. This sort of fanatical resistance can and has been admired by Americans, just as it is admired by Muslim fanatics today. This is what Bin Laden represents, a kind of super strenuous resistance movement against "the West". This has led many in the western press to view and write of Bin Laden as some sort of mass cult leader, a man who espouses insane and archaic views. This is far from the case. Bin Laden is an educated and calculating political leader who understands the dynamic of his fight. In anonymous' estimation, he strongly believes in these religious views and is able to link his theological feelings to a broader political feeling.

The best part of the book is the brilliant historical analysis of Bin Laden and the formation of Al-Qaeda. Osama's childhood, his development into a pious and religious mand, and his transformation into a Muslim fighter is all detailed in this section. We see Bin Laden using his money and his exceptional skills as a construction engineer to aid the Afghan resistance against the Soviets. Obviously, Bin Laden learned at an early age how to build and run effective organizations, as he set up both training camps and private enterprises all around the world. These constructs and the personal network he was developing would soon become Al-Qaeda. Once American troops were ensconced on the territory of Saudi Arabia, Bin Laden had his new enemy. He also became persona non grata to the Saudi royal family whom he knew very well, having grown up with many of them. He traveled to Sudan, where he, along with his growing network of veteran terrorist aides, methodically formed a deadly terrorist group with global reach. Finally, after several failed assassination attempts and pressure on the government of Sudan, Bin Laden returned to Afghanistan, where he was kept safe by his allies in the Taliban movement. The rest of the story, as one could say, is well known history. Anonymous ends his book with his predictions for the war on Al-Qaeda, some of which I disagreed with but none of them were uneducated guesses.

Anonymous has become a political firestorm since his most recent book, Imperial Hubris was released. I disagree with that book and I feel he makes many mistakes in this book. However, some of the parts of the book are so good and so eye opening that even I can overlook the more overtly political passages. His ideas concerning the nature of our enemy should be required reading by everyone who teaches or speaks on the subject. Anonymous warns of the threat Al-Qaeda creates for the United States, but he nevertheless spells out how we can and should win against the organization who seeks to destroy us anyway they can. I took away from this story a greater respect for the danger Bin Laden personally poses, as he is shown to be a near brilliant organizer and a deft politician as well. A great book.

I rarely agree with Newt Gingrich on anything -- see his review below -- but this time, I find myself in rare concurrence with him. A number of sources have identified "Anonymous" as Michael Scheuer, a CIA agent disgruntled with the way the Bush Administration has handled the so-called "War on Terror." On a number of TV appearances, he's appeared in shadow because one of the conditions for writing this book, and its sequel "Imperial Hubris," was that he remains unidentified. Regardless of whether it is Scheuer or not, "Through Our Enemies' Eyes" makes a very important contribution to the debate about the role of the United States and its NATO allies in the battle to crush Osama Bin Laden; and even more bleakly, one makes the assessment that this book, largely written before 9/11 and long before the Second Gulf War, correctly predicted a second war against Saddam Hussein would be a hopeless quagmire -- and a needless distraction against the real enemy, terrorism in all its forms whether sponsored by al Qaeda, the IRA, Aum Shinrikyo or anyone else.

The author's basic thrust is that to understand why the rest of the world hates America so much, the real question that should be asked is, "Why DOESN'T the world hate America?" The reason is essentially the same one that Michael Moore gives in his movies "Bowling for Columbine" and "Fahrenheit 9/11" -- America's support of the corrupt regimes in the Arab world while pretending to promote peace and democracy elsewhere. Arabs, says the CIA agent, do want freedom and democracy. But they want liberation on their terms. We just can't "impose" democratic norms on a country and hope for the best as some right-wing analyists claim. It's just not that simple. To think that it is and hope they will welcome us with open arms is like hoping for pie in the sky. It just won't happen.

It doesn't help matters that OPEC nations got super rich during the 1970's after the Yom Kippur War then squandered the Petrodollars building mega-projects of little value and pocketing the rest while running their countries into huge debts and their subjects into oppression. While this was going on, a demographic time bomb occurred in the Middle East. It is such that whereas we in the West finally mastered birth control to the point where the largest segment of the population in the next few years will be senior citizens; in their part of the world, a majority of people are under 30, very well educated (contrary to Western media claims), unemployed, and extremely restless.

It also doesn't help when one considers that Osama Bin Laden, who was trained as a counterterrorist by the Americans against the then Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan -- training perhaps paid for by the CIA itself -- offered to redeploy his allies in the Mujahidin, nearly one hundred thousand of them, to fight against Saddam Hussein when he attacked Kuwait in 1990. The Saudi Arabian government, instead, turned to the Americans for help; and in that moment Osama's greatest friend became his mortal enemy.

If this sounds like the American Patriot's gripe against King George III during the Revolutionary War, that's exactly the point the author makes. The real enemy, of course, was the British Parliament and the then Prime Minister, Lord North; but the Revolutionaries declared war against the King to make an example they were trying to create a new society based on "inalienable" principles. In the war, a lot of issues got muddled into the mix, such as the fact they weren't fighting for freedom for the slaves.

So it is, seemingly, with Al Qaeda. While we in the West see the Arab-Israeli conflict, the war in Iraq and the war against terrorism among others as entirely separate issues; many Muslims, and especially Arabs, see them as being linked all together, says the author. They see the borders drawn after World War I as being artificial creations of the British and the Americans and thus a slap in the face against Islam. They see Western support of the State of Israel and attempts to neutralize or even eliminate Yasser Arafat as a slap in the face against Islam. They see the long-standing American presence in the Gulf region as a slap in the face against Islam. In order to win the so-called "War on Terror," therefore, it's not enough to say we have higher and better principles. We have to see things their way, and if necessary, fight the war not on Western terms, but theirs. This point from the author makes it clear this is indeed a totally different kind of war, but not for the reasons we've been told by the mainstream press and certain governments.

This is not going to be a simple mop-up job. It's going to be a long, dangerous and protracted fight. No matter who occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, 10 Downing Street, 24 Sussex Drive, the Elysýe Palace and all the other official residences in NATO and our allies around the world, the first step to stamping out terrorism is to address the root causes. Since we have ignored their basic demands for far too long and have coddled the Sheiks and Emirs instead, it's little wonder why Osama Bin Laden has been so successful in offering simple solutions to his kind. Therefore, it should be no surprise whatsoever the Twin Towers didn't fall sooner than they did.

Like the Patriots, who didn't know if they'd win or lose, so too have al Qaeda and its sympathizers "mutually pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor." So must we again, in all countries around the world, says this book, and stick to our message unequivocated and without giving our enemies a chance to point out our hypocrisies, if we have a hope in Heaven of living in a world of Peace in the Age of Aquarius. The author's message, while bleak, is also one of hope that that glorious day will come --although, the way the war is being fought, it will take much longer than we've hoped.

Book was new as posted and the delivery was immediate thanks a bunch...

"Through our Enemies' Eyes" provides a unique, yet entirely vital analysis of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. The author argues that the United States' war against terrorism faces massive obstacles because Americans lack a concrete understanding of our foes. Anonymous notes that the U.S. often oversimplifies bin Laden by dismissingly branding him and his allies as radical ghouls hell-bent on the destruction of America. Consequently, we fail to see bin Laden as a calm, calculating enemy who will never stop his jihad against the U.S. until it abandons its military presence in the Middle East entirely and stops supplying aid to Israel. Further, and perhaps more important, Americans, as well as the U.S. media and many of our national leaders refuse to look at bin Laden and his al Qaeda fighters as they see themselves: righteous protectors of their own branch of Islam. "Through or Enemies Eyes" thus argues that before we can wage an effective war against international terrorism, we must first try to analyze the world and our own policies and actions through the perspective of the radical Islamists.

This is all not to say that Anonymous believes that we should ever sympathize with bin Laden and al Qaeda, or try to defeat them without brandishing our military might. Rather, the author believes that simply dropping an avalanche of bombs in the Middle East will not effectively combat any of the threats against America. Instead, it is key for Americans to understand that the beliefs espoused by bin Laden are not just his own. They tap into the deeply-engrained feelings of millions of Muslims worldwide. It is in this respect that the author well demonstrates that the pervasive influence of terrorism cannot be stopped by capturing or killing bin Laden. Instead it will take much greater time, effort, and even understanding.

The book is most effective in giving the reader a look into bin Laden's own psyche by analyzing his biography, his actions, and many of his own quotes. By doing so, Anonymous demonstrates that bin Laden does not view himself as blood-thirsty; rather, he sees himself as a holy warrior merely working to protect Islam. Therefore, his attacks against the U.S. and its allies are essentially ends justifying the means: a way for Islam to defend itself against what bin Laden perceives as oppression by the U.S., Israel, and other countries. I found this aspect of the book fascinating. To see bin Laden through the lenses of hundreds of his own speeches and quotations provided a picture of the al Qaeda leader that is generally not common in mainstream media coverage.

If there is one flaw to this book it is that while there is much discussion of the problems, very little in the way of proposed solutions. I understand that setting out solutions to specter of terrorism in a chapter is a Gordian task, no doubt about that. But what solutions the author does discuss at the end of the book are a little bit wanting. In the end, however, I suppose that this is to be expected. Throughout the text the author suggests continuously that he is trying to educate Americans to the complexity of the terrorism problem, and not necessarily craft a panacea. Still, Anonymous' next book, "Imperial Hubris" (due out in July 2004) apparently sets several proposed solutions as the author perceives them. I look forward to its release.

"Through our Enemies' Eyes" is a very important book. It provides a new perspective for analyzing the war on terrorism. It possesses built-in credence since it is authored by an intelligence author with experience in fighting Middle Eastern terrorism. It well argues that as Americans we must refocus our efforts and perspective to eradicate terrorism and achieve ultimate victory against al Qaeda. Invading nations in the Middle East, while perhaps helpful under certain conditions, generally only bolsters Osama bin Laden's preachings to the Muslim world and does little to erase the rancor that bin Laden has fostered in millions of Muslims. I encourage anyone with an interest in learning about the roots of terrorism to check out this book. I think much of what the book argues could help Americans go a long way to destroying bin Laden and his influence on the world.

firstly to the reviewer below who had a problem with the author being listed as "anonymous." This was a CIA requisite. The book has been vetted by CIA, no sources and methods have been compromised and the writer isn't a secret agent at all (unklike the actual agent dangerously outed and burned by the White House). In fact if you can just go to the website of editor and publisher (editorandpublisher dot com) and search for "imperial Hubris" (his latest book) and you will find a story naming him and discussing the fact that he already has been named in the press. His position isn't secret at all either, and the withholding of his name isn't his choice, but withhled by cia for reasons having to do with the politics of senior officials so strongly criticizing the Bush Administration. It is just a formality that the name is withehld.

In to the book. this book and the author's other work, Imperial Hubris, are must reads for understanding Bin Laden, the danger of terrorism to the US and concensus among the most senior and experienced intelligence hands that the war in Iraq has crippled our focus on the real threat and created more Bin Ladens for the future.

It is an especially cogent debunking of the "flypaper" theory of the war in Iraq, and lays bare the utter ignorance of people like Rumsfeld, Perle and Wolfowitz.