Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Nuclear option escalates jihad threat
The Australian ^ | October 01, 2005 | Greg Sheridan

Posted on 10/01/2005 7:43:47 AM PDT by Mount Athos

IN the past 12 months, influential Islamist jihadist websites have carried an increased discussion on the ethics and strategy of using weapons of mass destruction as part of the global terror campaign. In the week when state and federal governments in Australia have announced tougher rules to monitor and restrict possible and suspected terrorists, we have to take this discussion very seriously.

The Western policy-makers who deal with this do so cautiously. Virtually nobody in authority is being alarmist. But it is the WMD, especially the nuclear, dimension that raises terrorism from the spectrum of gruesome criminality through sustained insurgency and up to genuine strategic threat.

In an opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal two weeks ago Prime Minister John Howard, in expressing bitter disappointment at the UN's failure to do anything serious about nuclear non-proliferation, noted that "al-Qa'ida has made no secret of its ambitions to acquire -- and to use -- WMD".

The authoritative discussion of this option among several key religious figures in the global jihadist network should give us serious pause. Former foreign minister Gareth Evans, now head of the International Crisis Group, while acknowledging the real dangers, was this week urging caution and restraint in our response to terrorism.

But his words on nuclear terrorism were sobering: "We know very well how limited our capacity is, and always will be, to deny access to terrorist groups to chemical and especially biological weapons. But the same is true of nuclear weapons."

He spoke of the "stockpiles of fissile material that litter the landscape of the former Soviet Russia, and after the exposure in Pakistan we know far more than we did about the global market for nuclear technology, materials and expertise, and all of it is alarming ... the level of technical sophistication required to make a nuclear explosive device is certainly above the backyard level but it is not beyond competent professionals ... and there is enough [highly enriched] uranium and plutonium lying around now to make some 240,000 such weapons. Much of it -- particularly in Russia -- is not just poorly but appallingly guarded."

In a new volume, Current Trends in Islamist Ideology, published by the Hudson Institution, Reuven Paz of the Israeli Herzliya Centre for the Study of Terrorism, examines several definitive discussions and religious rulings on the use of WMDs in jihadist websites.

Again, Paz is not remotely alarmist. He notes the technical difficulty for terrorists in using nuclear weapons and the relatively small number of such discussions in the jihadist world. Nonetheless, they are disturbing.

In 2003 Saudi Sheikh Naser bin Hamad al-Fahd published the first fatwa on the use of nuclear weapons (he is now in jail in Saudi Arabia). Al-Fahd wrote: "If the Muslims could defeat the infidels only by using these kinds of weapons, it is allowed to use them, even if they kill all."

In a highly significant move, he later published a long, theological defence, citing all the relevant Islamic authorities and providing the kind of scholarly argument for his position that is so important to the committed jihadist. He discounted international law as this was not part of Islamic law. He argued that the US had used WMDs in the past and it and its allies possessed WMDs. He argued, with many recondite references, that Muslims were enjoined to act to the full limit of their ability and this logically necessitated the use of WMDs. His justification covered the general question of using WMDs and the specific case of using them now against the US.

As Paz comments: "Were any Islamist group planning to use WMDs, they have now received the necessary endorsement to do so from an Islamic point of view."

More recently, in December last year, Abu Mus'ab al-Suri, a former leading theorist of al-Qa'ida, published two documents on the "Islamist Global Resistance". He argues that using WMDs is the only way for jihadists to fight the West on equal terms and even goes so far as to urge Iran and North Korea to keep developing their nuclear weapons, seeing them as potential allies. This is particularly surprising as North Korea and Iran are generally regarded as infidel regimes. Their mention in this context demonstrates the flexibility and operational pragmatism even of global jihadism's theoreticians.

He even criticises the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the US for not using WMDs, and comments: "If I were consulted in the case of that operation I would advise the use of planes from outside the US that would carry WMDs. Hitting the US with WMDs was and is still very complicated. Yet it is possible after all, with Allah's help, and more important than being possible, it is vital ... the Muslim resistance elements [must] seriously consider this difficult yet vital direction."

He is sceptical of the ultimate strategic value of continued guerilla operations in Iraq, believing they will not inflict a severe enough blow on the US.

He therefore writes: "The ultimate choice is the destruction of the US by operations of strategic symmetry through weapons of mass destruction, namely nuclear, chemical, or biological means, if the mujaheddin can achieve it with the help of those who possess them or through buying them."

Most of this discussion focuses on the US as the ultimate target. However, other nations in the West are routinely mentioned and in many cases secular Muslim regimes are demonised. While naturally what one may call the theoretical discussions of the jihadists focus on the US, it is clear that Australia, along with countless other nations, is a target.

Global jihadism is truly protean; it keeps changing into something new. Suicide terrorism has been a devastating and effective tactic, as well as a kind of quasi-ideology of its own. But there is no reason to think it is the end point of terrorist evolution.

None of this means nuclear terrorism is just around the corner. But these sorts of discussions have been pivotal to the development of terrorist tactics in the past. That they are now concerning themselves with nuclear terrorism in such a considered and comprehensive fashion commands our closest attention.


TOPICS: Australia/New Zealand; Foreign Affairs; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: alqaeda; globaljihad; nukes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-28 last
To: SauronOfMordor

That's a great link. Thanks for posting.


21 posted on 10/01/2005 10:18:00 AM PDT by DC Bound (American greatness is the result of great individuals seeking to be anything but equal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rbg81
I wish I could believe that. Frankly, the PC crowd has such a long track record of ignoring reality that its hard see them coming to their senses, even if the Jihadists used nukes on us.

Their isn't going to be any time for ignoring reality or anyone coming to their senses once the 1st nuke goes off. The response triggers will be pulled without any time for PC to interfere and the end result will be the end of Islam and a large part of the rest of the world. The war on terror will have been won at a price that should never have been paid. There is still the chance we shall be the trigger pullers and I relish the thought of Mecca being turned into glass before a civilized city has to be sacrificed.

22 posted on 10/01/2005 6:24:34 PM PDT by hflynn ( Soros wouldn't make any sense even if he spelled his name backwards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: hflynn

Your scenario is more applicable to the days of the Cold War, when you knew exactly where missile launches came from. Unfortunately, with our current adversary, it isn't that black and white. Who do we strike out against? Do we take out countries where the terrorists may have originated from, even though the Government an erst-while ally (e.g., Pakistan and Saudi Arabia)?

Your assertion that we just take our Mecca isn't realistic. Responses aren't just blind spasms, they are based on war plans (existing or to be developed). Somehow I doubt that there are war plans that include the automatic destruction of Mecca before a lot of the Whos get answered after an attack.

My point in all this is that it took us about a month to respond in Afghanistan after 911. I think it will probably take 2-3 weeks to respond appropriately after a nuke attack. During that period, you're going to have every major newspaper, TV channel (sans Fox), and many Democratic politicians calling for "restraint". It will be very hard in that environment to respond with nukes.


23 posted on 10/02/2005 6:40:17 AM PDT by rbg81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos
If we are attacked with nukes, the phrase " your either with us or your against us" will come to into play. I'm afraid there will be many who are against us if we decide to retaliate.
24 posted on 10/02/2005 7:06:40 AM PDT by wolfcreek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rbg81
Your scenario is more applicable to the days of the Cold War, when you knew exactly where missile launches came from. Unfortunately, with our current adversary, it isn't that black and white. Who do we strike out against? Do we take out countries where the terrorists may have originated from, even though the Government an erst-while ally (e.g., Pakistan and Saudi Arabia)?

The response will be initiated before the incoming missile(s) hit the ground. The targets have already been selected and nothing will be able to save the guilty or innocent but 1 thing for sure the guilty will be on the target list.

25 posted on 10/02/2005 7:17:52 AM PDT by hflynn ( Soros wouldn't make any sense even if he spelled his name backwards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: hflynn
The response will be initiated before the incoming missile(s) hit the ground.

That's classic Cold War thinking. It's much more likely that a freighter under a neutral flag will sail into New York harbor and dock. The crew will pass thru customs and depart for the airport and in a few hours the nuke will go off. IOW think Sum of All Fears NOT Doctor Strangelove.

26 posted on 10/02/2005 1:30:22 PM PDT by ExSoldier (Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ExSoldier
That's classic Cold War thinking. It's much more likely that a freighter under a neutral flag will sail into New York harbor and dock. The crew will pass thru customs and depart for the airport and in a few hours the nuke will go off. IOW think Sum of All Fears NOT Doctor Strangelove.

Really. The scenario being discussed was a missile attack. I held a key as a NORAD officer. I can assure you the response would have occurred before anything incoming hit the ground. I can also assure you however a nuclear device is delivered the response has already been predetermined. Not only predetermined but those who chose to deliver a device have been forewarned what the targets will be hit in response.

27 posted on 10/02/2005 5:20:13 PM PDT by hflynn ( Soros wouldn't make any sense even if he spelled his name backwards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: hflynn
Sorry! My bad. I THOUGHT we were discussing the current situation. Of course you are 100% correct. If you'll refer back to my post I state that it's much more likely (current timeline) that a freighter will be the delivery vehicle rather than an incoming missile, which would of course be suicide for whatever nation launches against us.
28 posted on 10/02/2005 6:15:01 PM PDT by ExSoldier (Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-28 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson