http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/08/22/amanpour.binladen/story.bin.laden.afp.gi.jpg
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/08/22/amanpour.binladen/index.html
"Amanpour: Bin Laden still deadly relevant
Ex-CIA official says cleric sets cap of 10 million U.S. deaths"
By Christiane Amanpour
CNN
Tuesday, August 22, 2006; Posted: 12:15 p.m. EDT (16:15 GMT)
ARTICLE SNIPPET: "Michael Scheuer, who once headed the CIA's bin Laden unit, says bin Laden has been given permission by a young cleric in Saudi Arabia authorizing al Qaeda to "use nuclear weapons against the United States ... capping the casualties at 10 million."
"He's had an approval, a religious approval for 10 million deaths?" I asked him.
"Yes," Scheuer responded."
al Qaida's WMD Fatwa: Shaykh Nasir bin Hamid al Fahd
|
||
Until May 2003, al Qaeda did not have sufficient Islamic grounding on which to convincingly justify a WMD attack. In that month, however, a young Saudi cleric named Shaykh Nasir bin Hamid al-Fahd published "A Treatise on the Legal Status of Using Weapons of Mass Destruction Against Infidels." ... The study is lucidly written, comprehensive, and well-documented justification and authorization for using weapons of mass destruction against infidels-in this case, against the United States. ... Without Question, Shaykh al-Fahd wrote, the "Proscription [of weapons of mass destruction] Belongs to God Almighty, and to None Other Than He, such as Humans." Shaykh al-Fahd begins by describing the term "weapons of mass destruction" as an "inexact term," claiming that chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons that killed a thousand people would be called by the West "internationally banned weapons," whereas the use of "high explosive bombs weighing seven tons apiece and [that] killed three thousand or more" would be called "internationally permissible weapons." On that basis, he dismisses the WMD-armed West's treaties and regulations banning WMD proliferation as mere attempts to scare others and protect itself. "Thus it is evident," he wrote, "that [the Western nations] do not wish to protect humanity by these terms, as they assert; rather, they want to protect themselves and monopolize such weapons on the pretext of banning them internationally." ... "All these terms have no standing in Islamic law, because God Almighty has reserved judgment and legislation to Himself...This is a matter so obvious to Muslims that it needs no demonstration...In judging these weapons one looks only to the Koran, the Sunnah [i.e., the sayings and traditions of the Prophet], and the statements of Muslim scholars."
|
||
Excerpts from, Imperial Hubris , by Michael Scheuer: Pages 154-156
|