Replies

Many Kinds of Mushrooms
Russ Wellen (8/15/05)
http://www.freezerbox.com/archive/article.asp?id=364

...excerpts... (whole article is worth a read)

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

"There used to be so-called laws of war that made it [war] tolerable," Mohatma Gandhi said. But now, with the advent of nuclear weapons, "We understand the naked truth."

--

Besides the administration's embrace of tactical nukes as a weapon of preemptive war, most proud owners of nuclear weapons -- and those that look on longingly -- conceive of it as a tool for deterrence or for bartering.
Except, that is, bin Laden and his lieutenants.

--

Yossef Bodansky, head of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, confirmed this. "There is no longer much doubt that bin Laden has succeeded in his quest for nuclear suicide bombs [and] has a collection of individuals knowledgeable in activating the bombs."

--

Truly the sentiment of a noble mind. However, live by the fatwah, die by the fatwah. Sheikh Faysal Mawlawi says that "in case these nuclear weapons are used against Muslims, it becomes permissible for Muslims to defend themselves using the same weapon. This is based on the words of Allah: 'If ye punish, then punish with the like of that wherewith ye were afflicted.'"

--

The author of Imperial Hubris (Potomac, 2004), CIA officer Michael Scheuer of "Anonymous" fame, appeared on Sixty Minutes on November 14, 2004. He spoke of Sheik Nasir bin Hamid al Fahd, who bin Laden depends on, along with his two Salafi Jihadi colleagues, Ali al-Khudayr and Ahmad al-Khaladi, to provide religious support for his strategies and tactics.

In his 25-page fatwah, "A Treatise on the Legal Status of Using Weapons of Mass Destruction against Infidels," al Fahd said that if "the basic [Islamic] rule in killing is to do it in a good manner. . . one kills in a good manner only when one can."
I
n other words, if women, children, and even fellow Muslims are the collateral, he can live with them clattering down around him if it's in the pursuit of jihad.

--

Meanwhile, some jihadi statistician took time off from trying to figure out how many infidels fit through the eye of a needle to calculate that ten million Muslims had been killed by American weapons. Thus, al Fahd concluded, taking an equal number of lives in an attack on America is only fair play.

He does, however, qualify this last pronouncement. "We might need other arguments," al Fahd said, "if we wanted to annihilate more than this number of them."

--

That's as much a question for not only Islam but the West -- and an opportunity for Thomas Friedman to actually earn his pay. Regarding the London bombings, he wrote in his July 8 New York Times column that, "unlike after 9/11, there is no obvious, easy target to retaliate against."

"The Al Qaeda threat," he continued, "has metastasized and become franchised. It is no longer vertical, something that we can punch in the face. It is now horizontal, flat and widely distributed, operating through the Internet and tiny cells."

--

"With an American limited response in a war between nations," Wretchard continues, "the conflict might stop at this point." However, if it's a cell, rather than bin Laden who pulls off the strike, "the absence of someone with whom to negotiate a peace as well as the inclination to stop, the Islamic terrorists will continue to the extent of their capability.

"Even if the terror chiefs could somehow be contacted in this apocalyptic scenario and persuaded to bury the hatchet, the lack of command and control imposed by the cell structure would prevent them from reining in their minions.

"The so-called strengths of Islamic terrorism: fanatical intent; lack of a centralized leadership; absence of a final authority and cellular structure" are also its downfall. Therefore," Wretchard concludes, "the 'rational' American response to the initiation of a terrorist WMD attack would be all-out retaliation from the outset."