ISLAMIC LEADERS ARRESTED AHEAD OF PLANNED RALLY
Several in Pakistan under house arrest in bid to foil cartoon protest
Source of Article
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Pakistani police on Sunday raided offices and homes of dozens of radical Islamic leaders, putting several under house arrest and detaining hundreds of their associates in a bid to foil a rally in the capital, officials said.
Qazi Hussain Ahmad, the chief of a six-party coalition was placed under house arrest in the eastern city of Lahore, while other senior leaders were either arrested or asked not to leave their homes in Islamabad, where the rally was to be held today.
Mian Maqsood, a spokesman for the coalition said "hundreds" of Islamic leaders had been arrested, although Interior Minister Aftab Khan Sherpao said only about two dozen had been detained to stop the latest protest against the publication of Prophet Muhammad cartoons in Europe and elsewhere.
Fear of more violence
The arrests came hours after the government warned radical Islamic groups against holding the rally, fearing that it would spark more violence after at least five people died in riots across the country over the past week.
On Sunday, troops and police were alert in Islamabad to handle any situation.
Pakistani intelligence officials have said militants from outlawed extremist groups have been stirring up the violence. Authorities have banned demonstrations in several cities in the country's east, where riots turned deadly last week.
"We have condemned these blasphemous cartoons, but we will not allow anyone to disrupt peace," Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed said late Saturday.
But the rally's organizers said they will defy the order and go ahead with the protest.
"Our supporters are being arrested by police in raids at their homes, but we will hold the rally as planned," Mian Mohammad Aslam, a lawmaker with a coalition of six religious parties, said late Saturday.
Aslam was also arrested just before dawn Sunday.
Cartoon outrage
The cartoons offend Muslims because Islamic tradition bars drawings of Muhammad, favorable or otherwise, in a policy to discourage idolatry.
The drawings were first published in the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, and the reprinted by European media outlets that insist they're exercising their right to free speech.
Also on Saturday, about 12,000 women joined a nonviolent rally in the southern city of Karachi. The event was organized by Jamaat-e-Islami -- the country's oldest and best-organized religious party.
"We want that those who drew these blasphemous cartoons to be hanged," Aysha Munawar, a senior leader of the party, told the crowd. She also urged the government to sever ties with countries where the cartoons have been reprinted.
Lawmaker Ghaffor Ahmad, another leader of the group, said in a speech that police and the army should join the protests.
The "King Of The North" Is Coming!
Moderator: LWF Administration
-
WiseButPoorOldMan (Ecclesiastes 9:13-16)
- YORWW CONGREGATION MODERN DAY SERVANT
- Posts: 468
- Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 5:19 pm
- Location: Founder YORWW Bible Institute & Training Center resides YORWW World Headquarters Jamaica, W.I.
- Contact:
-
WiseButPoorOldMan (Ecclesiastes 9:13-16)
- YORWW CONGREGATION MODERN DAY SERVANT
- Posts: 468
- Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 5:19 pm
- Location: Founder YORWW Bible Institute & Training Center resides YORWW World Headquarters Jamaica, W.I.
- Contact:
CIA ANALYST SPEAKS ON BIN LADEN'S OFFER OF A TRUCE WITH AMERICA
By Steve Perry
Source of Article
Arab American News
When the latest Osama bin Laden tape aired on al Jazeera last month, Michael Scheuer's phone was one of the first to start ringing off the hook with calls from journalists seeking a quick soundbite for that day's news cycle. Scheuer has credentials on the subject that few can match: By the time September 11 happened, he had been studying and trailing bin Laden for five years, as the creator and chief analyst of the CIA's bin Laden unit. Later on, writing as "Anonymous," Scheuer put out two books about bin Laden and his group, Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam and the Future of America (published in 2002, but largely written in 1999 as an unclassified manual for CIA personnel joining the bin Laden unit) and the bestseller Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror, which appeared in 2004 shortly before Scheuer resigned the CIA to go public about his views.
Appearing on CBS Evening News the day the tape surfaced, January 19, Scheuer told anchor Bob Schieffer that "it would be foolish not to take this very seriously as a threat to the United States." He discussed the Islamic custom of offering one's enemies an out before attacking them, and made reference to bin Laden's long-standing wish to obtain a nuclear weapon, and to the still-unsecured stockpile of nukes in the former Soviet Union. "It sounds pretty scary, what you're saying here," Schieffer offered near the end of the two-minute segment. "This is not a threat that should be defined as criminals, gangsters, and deviants," Scheuer replied. "These are very serious people, they are our deadly enemies, and they are extraordinarily talented. We can worry about Saddam and we can worry about the Iranians," Scheuer answered, "but the only people capable of attacking us inside the United States in the world today is al Qaeda."
Scheuer's sense of alarm was soon forgotten, swallowed up by the official line about the bin Laden tape, which also became the conventional media wisdom: As ex-FBI terrorism hand Christopher Whitcomb put it to a different CBS anchor the next morning, "I don't think there's very much significance in this tape at all. And the reason is, we've seen so many of these in the past four-and-a-half years. Osama bin Laden is trying to show the world he's still relevant. I think he's not still relevant, and I think he is trying just to say, 'I'm out here, look at me.'"
I phoned Scheuer recently to ask him more about his views of the tape and the status of the U.S.'s anti-terror efforts.
City Pages: You've dissented strongly from the Bush administration line that says bin Laden and other Islamic radicals "hate us for our freedoms." What's the real root of their opposition?
Michael Scheuer: The real root of their opposition is what we do in the Islamic world. If they were hating us because we had elections, or gender equality, or liberty, they would be a lethal nuisance, but they wouldn't be a threat to our security. If you remember, the Ayatollah tried waging a jihad against Americans because we were degenerate˜we had X-rated movies, we drank liquor, women were in workplaces. Very, very few people were willing to die for that kind of thing. Bin Laden, I think, took a lesson from that and instead focused on the impact of our policies in the Islamic world˜our support for the Arab tyrannies in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, our presence in the holy lands on the Arabian Peninsula, our invasion of Iraq, our support for countries like Russia that are deemed to repress Islamic people. He's focused on things that are visible to the Islamic world every day, and quite frankly there's a direct correlation between what he says and what all the Western polling firms are finding, that there is a huge majority in Islamic countries that hate our foreign policy. And yet generally, every one of the same countries has a majority, sometimes a large one, that admires the way Americans live, the basic equity of our society.
We should be so lucky as to have him hate us only for our freedoms. He's never even discussed that kind of thing.
CP: After the latest bin Laden tape aired, the official spin was to call it a political bluff, or even a call for truce out of weakness on his part. But you've written and spoken about seeing a different aim behind these bin Laden warnings, one that has more to do with meeting the expectations of a Muslim audience than a Western one.
Scheuer: I think that's very much the case. He's very conscious of the tradition from which he comes and how that history works. It's the tradition of the prophet that you warn your enemy and you offer a truce before the fighting starts. Saladin followed the same tradition against the Crusaders in medieval times, and bin Laden has been very careful to follow that in his time. He's offered us warnings numerous times, but this is the first time he's offered a truce in addition. In the early summer of 2004, he offered the Europeans an almost identical truce or cease-fire. They refused him much like we did, and he attacked them in July of '05 in London.
CP: Getting back to what you said a moment ago about the importance to bin Laden of offering the U.S. a warning, didn't he in fact get in trouble in a lot of Islamic circles after 9/11 for failing to provide a warning
Scheuer: Yes˜that is, for failing to provide enough of a warning. The prophet's guidance is that you go the extra mile to warn your enemy. Bin Laden was called on the carpet by his peers in the Islamic militant movement for three things. One was that he didn't give us enough warning. He's now addressed the American people on five separate occasions since 2002. So he's taken care of that one. He was also called on the carpet for not offering us a chance to convert to Islam. He's now done that three separate times, and Zawahiri has done it once. So they've covered that angle. The other thing they were taken to task for was that they didn't have the religious authority to kill as many Americans as they did. In the summer of 2003, he got a religious judgment from a very reputable Saudi cleric that he could use weapons of mass destruction, specifically nuclear weapons, to kill up to 10 million Americans.
After 9/11, he had several very important loose ends to tie up, in religious terms, before he could attack us again. He's done all of those things. It's interesting, because he spoke on the eve of our presidential election, and he said, This is the last time I'm going to warn you. In his speech last week, he said, I was not going to talk to you again, but your president is lying to you. I wanted to give you one more opportunity to hear the truth. He again warned us about the impact of our policies, and then offered us the truce. But you were right at the beginning. He's very much speaking to an Islamic audience as much as to an American [one].
CP: How do you read the offer of truce, that being the unique element in this communiqué?
Scheuer: I think he's very serious about it. I don't think for a second he believes we'll take him up on it. But he's kind of done as much as he can do to make sure there's no further bloodshed between us and the forces he represents. It was very common, you know, in the era of the prophet˜truces came about fairly regularly. There were truces between Saladin and Richard the Lionhearted in the Third Crusade. One of them was as specific as three years and some odd months before the fighting was to resume. From his culture, from his history, this is a very serious offer. I think he expected the kind of curt response he got from Scott McClellan and then from the president and vice president.
This is a very difficult problem for a world that's run on the basis of nation-states. How do you respond to something like this?
CP: The competing popular images of bin Laden in the U.S. seem to run to opposite extremes˜he's either the supreme commander of anti-U.S. forces or an isolated, mostly ceremonial figure. Can you describe his place in the firmament of radical Muslim forces aligning against the U.S.?
Scheuer: I think he is the hero and the leader in the Islamic world. But that's not to say that he controls very much beyond his own group. The two things I would point out are that, one, for a man of his stature in the world, he probably has as little ego as I've ever seen in a leader. He's a man who clearly wants to control his own organization, but outside of that he's never really shown much interest in controlling other groups.
The other thing people tend to forget, or to lose in the rhetoric, is that when he outlined his aims in 1996, the first one - and it still is the first one - was to incite jihad around the world. He regarded al Qaeda and his role not as an instrument of American defeat, but as an instrument that would incite the jihad that would spur America's defeat. He saw his job as encouraging other groups to join in. Picking a number is kind of a mug's game, but now we have 40 or 50 groups around the world that fight, sometimes locally, but also have an intention of attacking the United States. So in his main goal, of incitement, he's been singularly successful.
CP: Can you talk about the role that the Iraq war has played in his recruiting successes?
Scheuer: I have to tell you, sir, I'm not an expert on Iraq. I don't know what the threat was from Saddam. My own judgment is, as a nation-state [Saddam's Iraq] was probably containable. But our invasion of Iraq broke the back of our counter-terrorism policy, because it validated in the Islamic mind so much of what bin Laden had said through the past decade. He said, Americans will do anything to defeat a strong Muslim government. We took Saddam out. He said we would take on and defeat any Muslim state that threatened Israel. I think Iraq is an indication of that being true, from their perspective. He said we would occupy their sanctities and try to destroy their religion. From the Islamist's perspective, we occupy all three of their sanctities now - the Arabian Peninsula, Iraq, and Jerusalem. The Israelis hold Jerusalem, but increasingly in the Islamic world, Americans and Israelis are viewed interchangeably. He said we were going to try to take all the oil from the Muslim world. And certainly the view predominates that one of the reasons we went to Iraq was oil.
And so, in terms of perception, the Iraq war was a validation of what bin Laden had said. In addition, bin Laden and Zawahiri are not trained Islamic clerics or jurists. The argument was always made that they had no authority, therefore, to declare a jihad. Well, when we invaded Iraq, it was kind of a textbook example of an event that necessitates jihad in the Islamic world. Now, any number of well-credentialed clerics and jurists and scholars have authorized jihad against the United States around the world, because we invaded a Muslim land. In my view, the invasion of Iraq accelerated the transformation of al Qaeda from a man and an organization into a philosophy and a movement.
We're at the point where it's still very important to kill˜preferably to kill, or else to capture˜Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri. But because of Iraq, our problem is far from over if that happens.
CP: From the standpoint of practical politics, do you think bin Laden and his associates feel obliged to make the next attack on U.S. soil more spectacular than the last?
Scheuer: That's certainly what they have promised. And one of the things I've tried to point out when I've been interviewed is that, objectively, if you examine bin Laden's rhetoric, the correlation between words and deeds is pretty much close to perfect. One of the things he always stressed from the very first days of al Qaeda was, I intend to incrementally ratchet up the severity of the pain I cause Americans until they begin to listen and change their policies. So my answer would be yes. To keep true to his world, which seems to be a major concern for him, the next attack on America will have to be more damaging than 9/11.
CP: You spoke on 60 Minutes over a year ago about bin Laden's seeking and obtaining the fatwa to use nuclear weapons against the U.S. Do you think it's his wish to use nuclear weapons in his next attack?
Scheuer: Sure. If he has them, he'll use them. It's not like he's looking for a deterrent. In old Cold War terms, he's looking for a first-strike weapon. One of the problems we have in the West, and particularly in America, is we view him as kind of a person who wouldn't have anything else to do if he wasn't killing and fighting. Clearly he would. America is not their first target. Their first targets are the Arab states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, that are tyrannies, and Israel. We're being attacked because bin Laden has argued that the other targets, the more important targets, are easy pickings if they can drive us out of the Middle East. One of the ways they look to do that is to create a situation in the United States that is so destructive, in terms of the economic impact and casualties, that it would take the U.S. military to administer the after-effects of the attack. Clearly their preference is for a nuclear-type weapon.
CP: How feasible do you think it is for an organization of their profile and resources to obtain a nuclear weapon?
Scheuer: Well, you know, money is never a problem. We make a lot of noise about taking their money, but we've taken very little of their money. To put it bluntly, they're not stupid enough to use the Western economic system. So that's one thing we shouldn't bank on. In 1996, we acquired the information that since 1992 they'd been trying to get one of these weapons, and have developed a unit that features technicians and engineers and hard scientists, to prevent themselves from being scammed.
We know - well, I didn't know it until the election campaign, when Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry were arguing about whether the Soviet nuclear arsenal should be under control by 2007 or 2010, but the Soviet nuclear arsenal is not all accounted for. When you add all these things up - the availability, the expertise available to them, and the virtually unlimited amounts of money they can bring to bear - I think we would be foolish not to think that they could do it.
There's a book called "Nuclear Terrorism" by a man named Graham Allison from Harvard, who is kind of the premier expert on the possibility of nuclear terrorism in the Western world. In that book, he points out that the only really difficult part about constructing a nuclear weapon is acquiring the fissile material, the highly enriched uranium or the plutonium. After that, the machining of the trigger and the containers and all the rest is not very hard at all. It's college-level physics. Certainly that kind of expertise is available to Osama bin Laden. I sat in on an unclassified briefing from a couple of our national laboratories, Sandia and Los Alamos, and they basically mirrored what Graham Allison had said. That basically, if you can acquire the fissile materials, you've done the hardest part of the job. I think we would be silly to assume they can't do it. Which is one reason I've been so outspoken about trying to control our borders.
CP: Could you comment briefly on the command-and-control structure of al Qaeda? I think most Americans have the notion of a paramilitary group with clear lines of top-down control. Is that correct, or is it more akin to a consortium of venture capitalists pursuing different objectives in different locales?
Scheuer: I think it's both. Bin Laden has always been someone who welcomed ideas, which, if he liked them, he would help to fund or train for. But in terms of attacks inside the United States, that is one part of his organization that he has always maintained personal command and control over. We argue quite frequently that he can't communicate, and that he's isolated. The one thing I hope we learn from last week's statement is that that argument may not be correct. He dominated the international media for three days at a time of his choosing.
If you can expose your telecommunication system to a satellite, you can communicate from anywhere in the world. He has all the money he needs. It's a very dangerous thing to assume he can't communicate.
CP: Any additional thoughts regarding the latest communiqué?
Scheuer: The only thing I've tried to say to people is that this is a very serious man, and a very talented one. He's a very terse man in many ways. He doesn't say things just for the sake of saying them. He is a man well acquainted with the power of silence, I think. When he says something, given the correlation between what he's said and what he's done in the past, I think he deserves a lot of respect and I don't want to say fear, but respect as an enemy is something that we don't give him. My own inclination is to say that the decks are pretty much cleared now. He would not have said what he said if he wasn't prepared to attack us.
Reprinted from CityPages
***
By Steve Perry
Source of Article
Arab American News
When the latest Osama bin Laden tape aired on al Jazeera last month, Michael Scheuer's phone was one of the first to start ringing off the hook with calls from journalists seeking a quick soundbite for that day's news cycle. Scheuer has credentials on the subject that few can match: By the time September 11 happened, he had been studying and trailing bin Laden for five years, as the creator and chief analyst of the CIA's bin Laden unit. Later on, writing as "Anonymous," Scheuer put out two books about bin Laden and his group, Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam and the Future of America (published in 2002, but largely written in 1999 as an unclassified manual for CIA personnel joining the bin Laden unit) and the bestseller Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror, which appeared in 2004 shortly before Scheuer resigned the CIA to go public about his views.
Appearing on CBS Evening News the day the tape surfaced, January 19, Scheuer told anchor Bob Schieffer that "it would be foolish not to take this very seriously as a threat to the United States." He discussed the Islamic custom of offering one's enemies an out before attacking them, and made reference to bin Laden's long-standing wish to obtain a nuclear weapon, and to the still-unsecured stockpile of nukes in the former Soviet Union. "It sounds pretty scary, what you're saying here," Schieffer offered near the end of the two-minute segment. "This is not a threat that should be defined as criminals, gangsters, and deviants," Scheuer replied. "These are very serious people, they are our deadly enemies, and they are extraordinarily talented. We can worry about Saddam and we can worry about the Iranians," Scheuer answered, "but the only people capable of attacking us inside the United States in the world today is al Qaeda."
Scheuer's sense of alarm was soon forgotten, swallowed up by the official line about the bin Laden tape, which also became the conventional media wisdom: As ex-FBI terrorism hand Christopher Whitcomb put it to a different CBS anchor the next morning, "I don't think there's very much significance in this tape at all. And the reason is, we've seen so many of these in the past four-and-a-half years. Osama bin Laden is trying to show the world he's still relevant. I think he's not still relevant, and I think he is trying just to say, 'I'm out here, look at me.'"
I phoned Scheuer recently to ask him more about his views of the tape and the status of the U.S.'s anti-terror efforts.
City Pages: You've dissented strongly from the Bush administration line that says bin Laden and other Islamic radicals "hate us for our freedoms." What's the real root of their opposition?
Michael Scheuer: The real root of their opposition is what we do in the Islamic world. If they were hating us because we had elections, or gender equality, or liberty, they would be a lethal nuisance, but they wouldn't be a threat to our security. If you remember, the Ayatollah tried waging a jihad against Americans because we were degenerate˜we had X-rated movies, we drank liquor, women were in workplaces. Very, very few people were willing to die for that kind of thing. Bin Laden, I think, took a lesson from that and instead focused on the impact of our policies in the Islamic world˜our support for the Arab tyrannies in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, our presence in the holy lands on the Arabian Peninsula, our invasion of Iraq, our support for countries like Russia that are deemed to repress Islamic people. He's focused on things that are visible to the Islamic world every day, and quite frankly there's a direct correlation between what he says and what all the Western polling firms are finding, that there is a huge majority in Islamic countries that hate our foreign policy. And yet generally, every one of the same countries has a majority, sometimes a large one, that admires the way Americans live, the basic equity of our society.
We should be so lucky as to have him hate us only for our freedoms. He's never even discussed that kind of thing.
CP: After the latest bin Laden tape aired, the official spin was to call it a political bluff, or even a call for truce out of weakness on his part. But you've written and spoken about seeing a different aim behind these bin Laden warnings, one that has more to do with meeting the expectations of a Muslim audience than a Western one.
Scheuer: I think that's very much the case. He's very conscious of the tradition from which he comes and how that history works. It's the tradition of the prophet that you warn your enemy and you offer a truce before the fighting starts. Saladin followed the same tradition against the Crusaders in medieval times, and bin Laden has been very careful to follow that in his time. He's offered us warnings numerous times, but this is the first time he's offered a truce in addition. In the early summer of 2004, he offered the Europeans an almost identical truce or cease-fire. They refused him much like we did, and he attacked them in July of '05 in London.
CP: Getting back to what you said a moment ago about the importance to bin Laden of offering the U.S. a warning, didn't he in fact get in trouble in a lot of Islamic circles after 9/11 for failing to provide a warning
Scheuer: Yes˜that is, for failing to provide enough of a warning. The prophet's guidance is that you go the extra mile to warn your enemy. Bin Laden was called on the carpet by his peers in the Islamic militant movement for three things. One was that he didn't give us enough warning. He's now addressed the American people on five separate occasions since 2002. So he's taken care of that one. He was also called on the carpet for not offering us a chance to convert to Islam. He's now done that three separate times, and Zawahiri has done it once. So they've covered that angle. The other thing they were taken to task for was that they didn't have the religious authority to kill as many Americans as they did. In the summer of 2003, he got a religious judgment from a very reputable Saudi cleric that he could use weapons of mass destruction, specifically nuclear weapons, to kill up to 10 million Americans.
After 9/11, he had several very important loose ends to tie up, in religious terms, before he could attack us again. He's done all of those things. It's interesting, because he spoke on the eve of our presidential election, and he said, This is the last time I'm going to warn you. In his speech last week, he said, I was not going to talk to you again, but your president is lying to you. I wanted to give you one more opportunity to hear the truth. He again warned us about the impact of our policies, and then offered us the truce. But you were right at the beginning. He's very much speaking to an Islamic audience as much as to an American [one].
CP: How do you read the offer of truce, that being the unique element in this communiqué?
Scheuer: I think he's very serious about it. I don't think for a second he believes we'll take him up on it. But he's kind of done as much as he can do to make sure there's no further bloodshed between us and the forces he represents. It was very common, you know, in the era of the prophet˜truces came about fairly regularly. There were truces between Saladin and Richard the Lionhearted in the Third Crusade. One of them was as specific as three years and some odd months before the fighting was to resume. From his culture, from his history, this is a very serious offer. I think he expected the kind of curt response he got from Scott McClellan and then from the president and vice president.
This is a very difficult problem for a world that's run on the basis of nation-states. How do you respond to something like this?
CP: The competing popular images of bin Laden in the U.S. seem to run to opposite extremes˜he's either the supreme commander of anti-U.S. forces or an isolated, mostly ceremonial figure. Can you describe his place in the firmament of radical Muslim forces aligning against the U.S.?
Scheuer: I think he is the hero and the leader in the Islamic world. But that's not to say that he controls very much beyond his own group. The two things I would point out are that, one, for a man of his stature in the world, he probably has as little ego as I've ever seen in a leader. He's a man who clearly wants to control his own organization, but outside of that he's never really shown much interest in controlling other groups.
The other thing people tend to forget, or to lose in the rhetoric, is that when he outlined his aims in 1996, the first one - and it still is the first one - was to incite jihad around the world. He regarded al Qaeda and his role not as an instrument of American defeat, but as an instrument that would incite the jihad that would spur America's defeat. He saw his job as encouraging other groups to join in. Picking a number is kind of a mug's game, but now we have 40 or 50 groups around the world that fight, sometimes locally, but also have an intention of attacking the United States. So in his main goal, of incitement, he's been singularly successful.
CP: Can you talk about the role that the Iraq war has played in his recruiting successes?
Scheuer: I have to tell you, sir, I'm not an expert on Iraq. I don't know what the threat was from Saddam. My own judgment is, as a nation-state [Saddam's Iraq] was probably containable. But our invasion of Iraq broke the back of our counter-terrorism policy, because it validated in the Islamic mind so much of what bin Laden had said through the past decade. He said, Americans will do anything to defeat a strong Muslim government. We took Saddam out. He said we would take on and defeat any Muslim state that threatened Israel. I think Iraq is an indication of that being true, from their perspective. He said we would occupy their sanctities and try to destroy their religion. From the Islamist's perspective, we occupy all three of their sanctities now - the Arabian Peninsula, Iraq, and Jerusalem. The Israelis hold Jerusalem, but increasingly in the Islamic world, Americans and Israelis are viewed interchangeably. He said we were going to try to take all the oil from the Muslim world. And certainly the view predominates that one of the reasons we went to Iraq was oil.
And so, in terms of perception, the Iraq war was a validation of what bin Laden had said. In addition, bin Laden and Zawahiri are not trained Islamic clerics or jurists. The argument was always made that they had no authority, therefore, to declare a jihad. Well, when we invaded Iraq, it was kind of a textbook example of an event that necessitates jihad in the Islamic world. Now, any number of well-credentialed clerics and jurists and scholars have authorized jihad against the United States around the world, because we invaded a Muslim land. In my view, the invasion of Iraq accelerated the transformation of al Qaeda from a man and an organization into a philosophy and a movement.
We're at the point where it's still very important to kill˜preferably to kill, or else to capture˜Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri. But because of Iraq, our problem is far from over if that happens.
CP: From the standpoint of practical politics, do you think bin Laden and his associates feel obliged to make the next attack on U.S. soil more spectacular than the last?
Scheuer: That's certainly what they have promised. And one of the things I've tried to point out when I've been interviewed is that, objectively, if you examine bin Laden's rhetoric, the correlation between words and deeds is pretty much close to perfect. One of the things he always stressed from the very first days of al Qaeda was, I intend to incrementally ratchet up the severity of the pain I cause Americans until they begin to listen and change their policies. So my answer would be yes. To keep true to his world, which seems to be a major concern for him, the next attack on America will have to be more damaging than 9/11.
CP: You spoke on 60 Minutes over a year ago about bin Laden's seeking and obtaining the fatwa to use nuclear weapons against the U.S. Do you think it's his wish to use nuclear weapons in his next attack?
Scheuer: Sure. If he has them, he'll use them. It's not like he's looking for a deterrent. In old Cold War terms, he's looking for a first-strike weapon. One of the problems we have in the West, and particularly in America, is we view him as kind of a person who wouldn't have anything else to do if he wasn't killing and fighting. Clearly he would. America is not their first target. Their first targets are the Arab states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, that are tyrannies, and Israel. We're being attacked because bin Laden has argued that the other targets, the more important targets, are easy pickings if they can drive us out of the Middle East. One of the ways they look to do that is to create a situation in the United States that is so destructive, in terms of the economic impact and casualties, that it would take the U.S. military to administer the after-effects of the attack. Clearly their preference is for a nuclear-type weapon.
CP: How feasible do you think it is for an organization of their profile and resources to obtain a nuclear weapon?
Scheuer: Well, you know, money is never a problem. We make a lot of noise about taking their money, but we've taken very little of their money. To put it bluntly, they're not stupid enough to use the Western economic system. So that's one thing we shouldn't bank on. In 1996, we acquired the information that since 1992 they'd been trying to get one of these weapons, and have developed a unit that features technicians and engineers and hard scientists, to prevent themselves from being scammed.
We know - well, I didn't know it until the election campaign, when Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry were arguing about whether the Soviet nuclear arsenal should be under control by 2007 or 2010, but the Soviet nuclear arsenal is not all accounted for. When you add all these things up - the availability, the expertise available to them, and the virtually unlimited amounts of money they can bring to bear - I think we would be foolish not to think that they could do it.
There's a book called "Nuclear Terrorism" by a man named Graham Allison from Harvard, who is kind of the premier expert on the possibility of nuclear terrorism in the Western world. In that book, he points out that the only really difficult part about constructing a nuclear weapon is acquiring the fissile material, the highly enriched uranium or the plutonium. After that, the machining of the trigger and the containers and all the rest is not very hard at all. It's college-level physics. Certainly that kind of expertise is available to Osama bin Laden. I sat in on an unclassified briefing from a couple of our national laboratories, Sandia and Los Alamos, and they basically mirrored what Graham Allison had said. That basically, if you can acquire the fissile materials, you've done the hardest part of the job. I think we would be silly to assume they can't do it. Which is one reason I've been so outspoken about trying to control our borders.
CP: Could you comment briefly on the command-and-control structure of al Qaeda? I think most Americans have the notion of a paramilitary group with clear lines of top-down control. Is that correct, or is it more akin to a consortium of venture capitalists pursuing different objectives in different locales?
Scheuer: I think it's both. Bin Laden has always been someone who welcomed ideas, which, if he liked them, he would help to fund or train for. But in terms of attacks inside the United States, that is one part of his organization that he has always maintained personal command and control over. We argue quite frequently that he can't communicate, and that he's isolated. The one thing I hope we learn from last week's statement is that that argument may not be correct. He dominated the international media for three days at a time of his choosing.
If you can expose your telecommunication system to a satellite, you can communicate from anywhere in the world. He has all the money he needs. It's a very dangerous thing to assume he can't communicate.
CP: Any additional thoughts regarding the latest communiqué?
Scheuer: The only thing I've tried to say to people is that this is a very serious man, and a very talented one. He's a very terse man in many ways. He doesn't say things just for the sake of saying them. He is a man well acquainted with the power of silence, I think. When he says something, given the correlation between what he's said and what he's done in the past, I think he deserves a lot of respect and I don't want to say fear, but respect as an enemy is something that we don't give him. My own inclination is to say that the decks are pretty much cleared now. He would not have said what he said if he wasn't prepared to attack us.
Reprinted from CityPages
***
"He that is from God listens to the sayings of God..." -- John 8:47
-
WiseButPoorOldMan (Ecclesiastes 9:13-16)
- YORWW CONGREGATION MODERN DAY SERVANT
- Posts: 468
- Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 5:19 pm
- Location: Founder YORWW Bible Institute & Training Center resides YORWW World Headquarters Jamaica, W.I.
- Contact:
US WARNS IRAN OF CONSEQUENCES OF NUCLEAR AMBITIONS
By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent
Source of Article
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States on Sunday warned that Iran faced "painful consequences" if it continued sensitive nuclear activities and said the problem would become increasingly difficult to resolve if the international community did not confront it.
Ahead of what could be a crucial international meeting on Iran on Monday, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton reaffirmed that the United States will use "all tools at our disposal" to thwart Iran's nuclear program and is already "beefing up defensive measures" to do so.
"The Iran regime must be made aware that if it continues down the path of international isolation, there will be tangible and painful consequences," he told 4,500 delegates to the annual convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the leading pro-Israel U.S. lobbying group.
Monday's meeting of the 35-nation International Atomic Energy Agency governing board is expected to take stock of Iran's continued defiance of U.S. and European demands to end sensitive weapons-related uranium enrichment activity and then hand the case over to the UN Security Council.
The United States is discussing a 30- to 60-day deadline for Tehran to halt its nuclear program and cooperate with international inspectors or face intensified pressure in the security council, a U.S. official told Reuters.
Iran on Sunday again threatened to begin large-scale nuclear enrichment if the case is taken up by the security council.
Bolton said Iran poses a "comprehensive threat" as a state-sponsor of terrorism and a nuclear aspirant, and so "we must be prepared to ... use all the tools at our disposal to stop the threat."
'LONGER WE WAIT ... HARDER IT WILL BECOME TO SOLVE'
"The longer we wait to confront the threat Iran poses, the harder and more intractable it will become to solve," he warned.
Bolton reaffirmed that Washington does not see the security council moving quickly to impose sanctions on Iran. Veto-wielding members Russia and China have made clear their reluctance.
But he said many other governments have begun to speak publicly of sanctions, implying they may take action outside the security council.
The United States has had sweeping sanctions on Iran since after the 1979 Iranian revolution, but it is looking at ways to further use its Proliferation Security Initiative to deny Iran materials it needs for its nuclear program, Bolton said.
The United States and key allies, led by the European Union trio of Britain, France and Germany, are convinced Iran is trying to produce a nuclear weapon, but Tehran insists it is only interested in civilian nuclear energy.
Former chief UN weapons inspector David Kay, who also spoke at the AIPAC conference, discussed the limits of weapons inspections and said a conclusive judgment about Iran's program may only come too late, after it conducts a weapons test.
The IAEA is expected to weigh a report on Monday by the IAEA chief saying Iran has ignored a February 4 resolution urging it to shelve uranium-enrichment work to ease the crisis.
Instead, Iran is vacuum-testing 20 centrifuges, which convert uranium into fuel for power plants or, if highly purified, bombs, the report said. Iran also plans to install 3,000 centrifuges later this year in a push to "industrial scale" enrichment, according to the IAEA report.
The IAEA board voted on February 4 to report Iran to the security council, but on the condition the world body would not flex its muscle at least until after Monday's session.
If the security council did not act in a timely manner, Bolton said, the council's credibility would be damaged.
By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent
Source of Article
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States on Sunday warned that Iran faced "painful consequences" if it continued sensitive nuclear activities and said the problem would become increasingly difficult to resolve if the international community did not confront it.
Ahead of what could be a crucial international meeting on Iran on Monday, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton reaffirmed that the United States will use "all tools at our disposal" to thwart Iran's nuclear program and is already "beefing up defensive measures" to do so.
"The Iran regime must be made aware that if it continues down the path of international isolation, there will be tangible and painful consequences," he told 4,500 delegates to the annual convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the leading pro-Israel U.S. lobbying group.
Monday's meeting of the 35-nation International Atomic Energy Agency governing board is expected to take stock of Iran's continued defiance of U.S. and European demands to end sensitive weapons-related uranium enrichment activity and then hand the case over to the UN Security Council.
The United States is discussing a 30- to 60-day deadline for Tehran to halt its nuclear program and cooperate with international inspectors or face intensified pressure in the security council, a U.S. official told Reuters.
Iran on Sunday again threatened to begin large-scale nuclear enrichment if the case is taken up by the security council.
Bolton said Iran poses a "comprehensive threat" as a state-sponsor of terrorism and a nuclear aspirant, and so "we must be prepared to ... use all the tools at our disposal to stop the threat."
'LONGER WE WAIT ... HARDER IT WILL BECOME TO SOLVE'
"The longer we wait to confront the threat Iran poses, the harder and more intractable it will become to solve," he warned.
Bolton reaffirmed that Washington does not see the security council moving quickly to impose sanctions on Iran. Veto-wielding members Russia and China have made clear their reluctance.
But he said many other governments have begun to speak publicly of sanctions, implying they may take action outside the security council.
The United States has had sweeping sanctions on Iran since after the 1979 Iranian revolution, but it is looking at ways to further use its Proliferation Security Initiative to deny Iran materials it needs for its nuclear program, Bolton said.
The United States and key allies, led by the European Union trio of Britain, France and Germany, are convinced Iran is trying to produce a nuclear weapon, but Tehran insists it is only interested in civilian nuclear energy.
Former chief UN weapons inspector David Kay, who also spoke at the AIPAC conference, discussed the limits of weapons inspections and said a conclusive judgment about Iran's program may only come too late, after it conducts a weapons test.
The IAEA is expected to weigh a report on Monday by the IAEA chief saying Iran has ignored a February 4 resolution urging it to shelve uranium-enrichment work to ease the crisis.
Instead, Iran is vacuum-testing 20 centrifuges, which convert uranium into fuel for power plants or, if highly purified, bombs, the report said. Iran also plans to install 3,000 centrifuges later this year in a push to "industrial scale" enrichment, according to the IAEA report.
The IAEA board voted on February 4 to report Iran to the security council, but on the condition the world body would not flex its muscle at least until after Monday's session.
If the security council did not act in a timely manner, Bolton said, the council's credibility would be damaged.
"He that is from God listens to the sayings of God..." -- John 8:47
-
Mary
- YORWW BIBLE ACADEMY GRADUATE (ALUMNI)
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 10:39 am
- Location: 2003 YORWW Bible Academy Graduate
MAJOR THREAT TO US NOT REPORTED (PERHAPS NOT EVEN NOTICED)
WARNING: MAJOR THREAT TO US NOT REPORTED (PERHAPS NOT EVEN NOTICED)
Date and time: 2006-03-12 00:33:28
Source of Article
With a salute toward Mario Profaca, one of the best Internet scouts around, we post below a major warning about two attacks to be carried out in the USA, away from Washington. Arizona is specifically mentioned. We consider Florida and Texas to be prime candidates for an attack. This particular threat may or may nolt have been planned by Bin Laden. See the link to the book Rage of the Random Actor. What is happening here are three things: 1) Peripheral admirers of Bin Laden are taking their own initiatives--he has shown them the end and the means, they are making their own way. 2) Middle class individuals being driven into poverty are losing their minds--the cheating culture is creating huge disconnects between expectations and achievements, and more and more folks are going into "desperation" mode; and 3) finally, it would be a serious mistake to under-estimate both the seriousness of the complaints against the current Administration and its policies and actions overseas, and the degree to which rational people simply do not trust the government to do the right thing. This is Waco times ten million, on a global scale.
One final observation: in addition to seeing more copycat violence, we are going to start seeing a lot more copycat "wanna-bees" who issue warnings or leave signs of an attack simply to jerk the system's chain. Law enforcement works only when the majority are sane and law abiding, and those we need to deal with a very small minority. We are reaching a tipping point. It is not inconceivable for the USA to eventually (25 years out) be dismembered as the "nine nations of North America" lose faith in the federal government and some of them choose to go their own way--for example, the Pacific Northwest succeeding from the Union to join British Columbia. The current path is very destructive, both internally and externally.
Islamic websites carry al-Qaida's 'last warning'
Threat of 2 operations designed to bring Americans 'to your knees'
Posted: March 11, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com.
WASHINGTON – Islamic websites yesterday posted a "last warning" warning by Rakan Ben Williams, who describes himself as an "al-Qaida undercover soldier" in the U.S., threatening two major operations designed to bring Americans "to your knees."
According to the Middle East Media Research Institute, the Global Islamic Media Front was responsible for posting the threat.
Williams is a mystery man, who, according to the London Arabic newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, is an English convert to Islam.
The threat suggests the attack will be far greater in magnitude than Sept. 11, 2001, because following this one, "there will be no one to analyze and investigate, because the mind and the heart will be unable to comprehend it. ... This will not be a single operation, but two; one bigger than the other, but we will begin with the big one and postpone the bigger one, in order to see [how] diligent the American people is [in preserving] its life. If it chooses life, [it must] carry out the demands of the Muslims, and if it chooses death, then we are its best perpetrators."
The warning appeared in Arabic and in English.
"Do not put your hopes on Bush and his clan, they are incapable of protecting you, and if they think they are, let them foil or stop the two upcoming operations, and punish those who are responsible for them," says the statement. "But if they could not identify and foil the devastating events coming your way, you must ask yourselves: How long will we continue allowing ourselves to be slaughtered with full advance knowledge of our fate?
"Let me now inform you why we opted to inform you about the two operations and your inability to stop them before they are carried out. The reason is simple: You cannot uncover or stop them except by letting them be carried out. Furthermore, the best you could do would be to accelerate the day of carrying out the operations. In other words, if we schedule the operation to take place tomorrow, the best you could do is to make it happen today."
The spokesman claims the operations are inevitable – even if the specific plans are uncovered by authorities.
"This indeed is a sweet situation to be in," he says. "It is a win-win all the way for us. It is the ultimate control and the most stunning way to stop an operation (accelerating it with the same impact). What we are saying is this: You will have a choice of either let us carry it out on our own schedule and with our own hands or allow your own intelligence apparatus to cause it to happen. This second choice will cause a level of dissatisfaction (with your decision makers) to reach its highest level. Therefore, your Homeland Security agencies would have no choice but to surrender and wait for the inevitable to happen."
Williams asserts, he "will not give any more clues; this is enough as a wake up call. Perhaps the American people will start thinking about the magnitude of the danger that is coming their way."
The statement also appears to be an attempt to divide Americans by region.
"O you helpless Americans, especially those living in States far away from Washington, D.C.!" he says. "Your country is comprised of many states that should not have anything to do with Muslims. Take the state of Arizona for example; what does this state have to do with killing Muslims in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq? What interest is it of theirs serving, helping, and siding with the Jews and Israel? If some members of your Congress and Senate are being used as Jewish tools manipulated by Israel, why do you bear the consequences? Why do you bring death and destruction to your homes and lives in an apparent sacrifice for a handful of dishonest men and women?"
The statement says the operations are awaiting only a final order from Osama bin Laden.
"The operations are ready to go, we are just waiting for orders from the commander in chief, Osama bin Laden (may Allah preserve him)," it says. "He will decide whether to strike or to hold. We swear by Allah that there are so many tricks and tactical maneuvers that will make your heads spin, by the grace of Allah. You will be brought to your knees, but not until you lose more loved ones and experience significant destruction."
It continues: "Now is the time to wake up and dust off this state of complacency and ineffectiveness to save yourselves and your loved ones from catastrophes sure to come your way. Remove war mongers from positions of power and throw them in prisons, where they belong. Rid yourselves of 'the Jewish pests' that brought nothing to you but adversity and loss of lives and wealth. They have deceived you for many years, it is time now you turn the table on them and make an example out of them. Rid yourselves of media crafters who deliberately kept you in the dark for so long and made a mockery of you before the rest of the world."
The statement calls for a boycott of NBC and CBS because of their Jewish owners. It calls on Americans to watch al-Jazeera and to visit Islamic websites "to get educated."
"Visit Mujahideen web sites to get to know who they are," it suggests. "You will see for yourselves that they are not what your media outlets made you believe they are. If you cannot do that, the least you could do is to watch Al-Jazeera Channel; there you might get 20 percent or less of the truth about the war zones. Resent the corrupted politicians in Washington, D.C. and demand justice, if they do not give in to your demands, you must declare autonomy so you may live in peace and security."
Williams calls the statement "the last warning you will receive from us. Consequently, if you ignore it, we regret to inform you that we will carry out devastating operations against the states of America and we will not show mercy whatsoever."
***
Date and time: 2006-03-12 00:33:28
Source of Article
With a salute toward Mario Profaca, one of the best Internet scouts around, we post below a major warning about two attacks to be carried out in the USA, away from Washington. Arizona is specifically mentioned. We consider Florida and Texas to be prime candidates for an attack. This particular threat may or may nolt have been planned by Bin Laden. See the link to the book Rage of the Random Actor. What is happening here are three things: 1) Peripheral admirers of Bin Laden are taking their own initiatives--he has shown them the end and the means, they are making their own way. 2) Middle class individuals being driven into poverty are losing their minds--the cheating culture is creating huge disconnects between expectations and achievements, and more and more folks are going into "desperation" mode; and 3) finally, it would be a serious mistake to under-estimate both the seriousness of the complaints against the current Administration and its policies and actions overseas, and the degree to which rational people simply do not trust the government to do the right thing. This is Waco times ten million, on a global scale.
One final observation: in addition to seeing more copycat violence, we are going to start seeing a lot more copycat "wanna-bees" who issue warnings or leave signs of an attack simply to jerk the system's chain. Law enforcement works only when the majority are sane and law abiding, and those we need to deal with a very small minority. We are reaching a tipping point. It is not inconceivable for the USA to eventually (25 years out) be dismembered as the "nine nations of North America" lose faith in the federal government and some of them choose to go their own way--for example, the Pacific Northwest succeeding from the Union to join British Columbia. The current path is very destructive, both internally and externally.
Islamic websites carry al-Qaida's 'last warning'
Threat of 2 operations designed to bring Americans 'to your knees'
Posted: March 11, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com.
WASHINGTON – Islamic websites yesterday posted a "last warning" warning by Rakan Ben Williams, who describes himself as an "al-Qaida undercover soldier" in the U.S., threatening two major operations designed to bring Americans "to your knees."
According to the Middle East Media Research Institute, the Global Islamic Media Front was responsible for posting the threat.
Williams is a mystery man, who, according to the London Arabic newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, is an English convert to Islam.
The threat suggests the attack will be far greater in magnitude than Sept. 11, 2001, because following this one, "there will be no one to analyze and investigate, because the mind and the heart will be unable to comprehend it. ... This will not be a single operation, but two; one bigger than the other, but we will begin with the big one and postpone the bigger one, in order to see [how] diligent the American people is [in preserving] its life. If it chooses life, [it must] carry out the demands of the Muslims, and if it chooses death, then we are its best perpetrators."
The warning appeared in Arabic and in English.
"Do not put your hopes on Bush and his clan, they are incapable of protecting you, and if they think they are, let them foil or stop the two upcoming operations, and punish those who are responsible for them," says the statement. "But if they could not identify and foil the devastating events coming your way, you must ask yourselves: How long will we continue allowing ourselves to be slaughtered with full advance knowledge of our fate?
"Let me now inform you why we opted to inform you about the two operations and your inability to stop them before they are carried out. The reason is simple: You cannot uncover or stop them except by letting them be carried out. Furthermore, the best you could do would be to accelerate the day of carrying out the operations. In other words, if we schedule the operation to take place tomorrow, the best you could do is to make it happen today."
The spokesman claims the operations are inevitable – even if the specific plans are uncovered by authorities.
"This indeed is a sweet situation to be in," he says. "It is a win-win all the way for us. It is the ultimate control and the most stunning way to stop an operation (accelerating it with the same impact). What we are saying is this: You will have a choice of either let us carry it out on our own schedule and with our own hands or allow your own intelligence apparatus to cause it to happen. This second choice will cause a level of dissatisfaction (with your decision makers) to reach its highest level. Therefore, your Homeland Security agencies would have no choice but to surrender and wait for the inevitable to happen."
Williams asserts, he "will not give any more clues; this is enough as a wake up call. Perhaps the American people will start thinking about the magnitude of the danger that is coming their way."
The statement also appears to be an attempt to divide Americans by region.
"O you helpless Americans, especially those living in States far away from Washington, D.C.!" he says. "Your country is comprised of many states that should not have anything to do with Muslims. Take the state of Arizona for example; what does this state have to do with killing Muslims in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq? What interest is it of theirs serving, helping, and siding with the Jews and Israel? If some members of your Congress and Senate are being used as Jewish tools manipulated by Israel, why do you bear the consequences? Why do you bring death and destruction to your homes and lives in an apparent sacrifice for a handful of dishonest men and women?"
The statement says the operations are awaiting only a final order from Osama bin Laden.
"The operations are ready to go, we are just waiting for orders from the commander in chief, Osama bin Laden (may Allah preserve him)," it says. "He will decide whether to strike or to hold. We swear by Allah that there are so many tricks and tactical maneuvers that will make your heads spin, by the grace of Allah. You will be brought to your knees, but not until you lose more loved ones and experience significant destruction."
It continues: "Now is the time to wake up and dust off this state of complacency and ineffectiveness to save yourselves and your loved ones from catastrophes sure to come your way. Remove war mongers from positions of power and throw them in prisons, where they belong. Rid yourselves of 'the Jewish pests' that brought nothing to you but adversity and loss of lives and wealth. They have deceived you for many years, it is time now you turn the table on them and make an example out of them. Rid yourselves of media crafters who deliberately kept you in the dark for so long and made a mockery of you before the rest of the world."
The statement calls for a boycott of NBC and CBS because of their Jewish owners. It calls on Americans to watch al-Jazeera and to visit Islamic websites "to get educated."
"Visit Mujahideen web sites to get to know who they are," it suggests. "You will see for yourselves that they are not what your media outlets made you believe they are. If you cannot do that, the least you could do is to watch Al-Jazeera Channel; there you might get 20 percent or less of the truth about the war zones. Resent the corrupted politicians in Washington, D.C. and demand justice, if they do not give in to your demands, you must declare autonomy so you may live in peace and security."
Williams calls the statement "the last warning you will receive from us. Consequently, if you ignore it, we regret to inform you that we will carry out devastating operations against the states of America and we will not show mercy whatsoever."
***
_______________________________________________________________________________
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
George Bernard Shaw
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
George Bernard Shaw
-
WiseButPoorOldMan (Ecclesiastes 9:13-16)
- YORWW CONGREGATION MODERN DAY SERVANT
- Posts: 468
- Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 5:19 pm
- Location: Founder YORWW Bible Institute & Training Center resides YORWW World Headquarters Jamaica, W.I.
- Contact:
FORMER IRAQ PM: 'WE ARE IN CIVIL WAR'
LONDON, March 19, 2006
Source of Article
(CBS/AP) Iraq is in the middle of a civil war, Iraq's former prime minister, Ayad Allawi, said in an interview with the British Broadcasting Corp. aired on Sunday.
Allawi said there was no other way to describe the increasing violence across the country.
"It is unfortunate that we are in civil war. We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more," Allawi told the BBC. "If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."
Allawi heads the Iraqi National List, a secular alliance of Shiite and Sunni politicians.
While visiting British troops in Iraq on Sunday, defense secretary John Reid said Allawi's remarks to the BBC contradicted what the former prime minister had told him in a meeting on Saturday.
"Every single politician I have met here from the prime minister to the president, the defense minister and indeed Ayad Allawi himself yesterday said to me there's an increase in the sectarian killing, but there's not a civil war and we will not allow a civil war to develop," Reid said.
"The essential thing is to show maximum unity in a government of national unity so that the terrorists that do want a civil war do not get their wish."
Allawi said the violence in the country was moving toward "the point of no return" and that Iraq is "in a terrible civil conflict."
Allawi warned that European nations and the United States would not be immune from the conflict, saying that not only will Iraq "fall apart," but that "sectarianism will spread throughout the region, and even Europe and the United States would not be spared all the violence that may occur as a result of sectarian problems in this region."
Not surprisingly, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld disagreed.
In a Washington Post column Sunday, Rumsfeld argued that talk of civil war has been overblown, promoted mostly by terrorists, who, as the defense secretary said, "seem to recognize that they are losing in Iraq."
Rumsfeld added that failing to fight terrorists in Iraq, "would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis."
After the bombing of the Shia shrine at Samarra on Feb. 22, there was an increase in civil violence, leading observers to say that the country was on the brink of civil war, an assertion that has been rejected by lawmakers.
Allawi said that playing down the current problems in Iraq would be a mistake, and told the BBC that he had warned against creating a power vacuum and the prevalence of militias.
Allawi said the formation of a national unity government was the means the country needs to achieve the goal of a peaceful country.
Iraq's newly elected Parliament was seated on Thursday, and representatives of its Shiite Arab, Sunni Arab and Kurdish blocs have been meeting in an effort to overcome deep divisions and agree on the makeup of a new government. The minority factions want to block broad Shiite control of powerful ministries.
Allawi, a secular Shiite whose nonsectarian party won 25 seats in December parliamentary balloting, was among the groups trying to block the candidacy of Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari.
Al-Jaafari, the opposition groups contend, would not represent their interests and did too little to stop Shiite revenge attacks in the aftermath of the Samarra shrine bombing.
LONDON, March 19, 2006
Source of Article
(CBS/AP) Iraq is in the middle of a civil war, Iraq's former prime minister, Ayad Allawi, said in an interview with the British Broadcasting Corp. aired on Sunday.
Allawi said there was no other way to describe the increasing violence across the country.
"It is unfortunate that we are in civil war. We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more," Allawi told the BBC. "If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."
Allawi heads the Iraqi National List, a secular alliance of Shiite and Sunni politicians.
While visiting British troops in Iraq on Sunday, defense secretary John Reid said Allawi's remarks to the BBC contradicted what the former prime minister had told him in a meeting on Saturday.
"Every single politician I have met here from the prime minister to the president, the defense minister and indeed Ayad Allawi himself yesterday said to me there's an increase in the sectarian killing, but there's not a civil war and we will not allow a civil war to develop," Reid said.
"The essential thing is to show maximum unity in a government of national unity so that the terrorists that do want a civil war do not get their wish."
Allawi said the violence in the country was moving toward "the point of no return" and that Iraq is "in a terrible civil conflict."
Allawi warned that European nations and the United States would not be immune from the conflict, saying that not only will Iraq "fall apart," but that "sectarianism will spread throughout the region, and even Europe and the United States would not be spared all the violence that may occur as a result of sectarian problems in this region."
Not surprisingly, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld disagreed.
In a Washington Post column Sunday, Rumsfeld argued that talk of civil war has been overblown, promoted mostly by terrorists, who, as the defense secretary said, "seem to recognize that they are losing in Iraq."
Rumsfeld added that failing to fight terrorists in Iraq, "would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis."
After the bombing of the Shia shrine at Samarra on Feb. 22, there was an increase in civil violence, leading observers to say that the country was on the brink of civil war, an assertion that has been rejected by lawmakers.
Allawi said that playing down the current problems in Iraq would be a mistake, and told the BBC that he had warned against creating a power vacuum and the prevalence of militias.
Allawi said the formation of a national unity government was the means the country needs to achieve the goal of a peaceful country.
Iraq's newly elected Parliament was seated on Thursday, and representatives of its Shiite Arab, Sunni Arab and Kurdish blocs have been meeting in an effort to overcome deep divisions and agree on the makeup of a new government. The minority factions want to block broad Shiite control of powerful ministries.
Allawi, a secular Shiite whose nonsectarian party won 25 seats in December parliamentary balloting, was among the groups trying to block the candidacy of Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari.
Al-Jaafari, the opposition groups contend, would not represent their interests and did too little to stop Shiite revenge attacks in the aftermath of the Samarra shrine bombing.
"He that is from God listens to the sayings of God..." -- John 8:47
-
Mary
- YORWW BIBLE ACADEMY GRADUATE (ALUMNI)
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 10:39 am
- Location: 2003 YORWW Bible Academy Graduate
INTERPOL SAYS AL QAEDA PREPARING FOR BIOLOGICAL WARFARE
INTERPOL SAYS AL QAEDAA PREPARING FOR BIOLOGICAL WARFARE
(DPA)
Source of Article
27 March 2006
SINGAPORE - Interpol said the Al Qaeda terrorist group is preparing to engage in biological warfare in urging countries to enact legislation allowing police to investigate scientific activity that can result in the manufacture of a bio-terrorist weapon.
Ronald Noble, secretary-general of the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol), told a conference in Singapore that captured terrorist suspects have admitted that their groups are plotting potential biological attacks.
There is enough evidence to show that Al Qaeda is preparing to engage in biological warfare, Noble said.
“It can’t be that we as a world community have to wait for a September 11 type of attack in bio-terrorism before we prepare,” Noble told government officials, police and health experts attending the Asian Terrorism Workshop.
“Institutions that are engaged in any bioscience need to make sure that the controls they have in place are sure that only legitimate scientific investigative activity is going on,” he said.
Police forces worldwide need to be trained, Noble said. They need to know how to investigate bio-terrorism-related cases and how to handle such an attack.
Representatives from 26 Asian countries are attending the three- day conference.
The law enforcement officers were encouraged to coordinate moves aimed at warding off bio-terrorist attacks or days may past prior to the realization that such a calamity has already occurred.
“Unlike other forms of terrorist acts where the impact can be felt almost instantaneously in the aftermath, we may not realize that a biological attack has occurred until perhaps days or even weeks later,” said Ho Peng Kee, Singapore’s senior minister of state for law and home affairs.
“By that time, the terrorist may already have fled the country or succumbed to the biological agent, and all the valuable investigative leads may have disappeared,” Ho noted in a keynote address.
The after-effects of a bio-terrorist attack may be far more widespread “in this age of easy air travel,” he warned, transcending borders and impacting different continents.
Ho called on countries to reach out to one another and increase their level of cooperation and exchange of information.
“Time is of the essence,” he said. Networks must be established and strengthened in times of normalcy so that we are resilient enough to confront and overcome crises.
The Al Qaeda-linked Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), a terrorist group blamed for a spate of attacks and plots throughout Southeast Asia, has relied on bombings, including suicide bombers. A manual discovered in the Philippines in 2003 however indicated interest in acquiring chemical and biological agents.
The JI has been held responsible for the 2002 Bali nightclub attacks that killed 202 people, last October’s attack on the island that left 20 dead and several attacks in Jakarta.
Singapore passed a law in 2005 carrying a life-imprisonment term for anyone using biological agents for non-peaceful purposes.
As a close ally of the United States, the city-state regards itself as a prime target of terrorists and has uncovered JI plans to attack its infrastructure, transport facilities, the US and Israeli embassies.
The US has been urging Asian countries to enact tougher laws against bio-terrorism.
***
(DPA)
Source of Article
27 March 2006
SINGAPORE - Interpol said the Al Qaeda terrorist group is preparing to engage in biological warfare in urging countries to enact legislation allowing police to investigate scientific activity that can result in the manufacture of a bio-terrorist weapon.
Ronald Noble, secretary-general of the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol), told a conference in Singapore that captured terrorist suspects have admitted that their groups are plotting potential biological attacks.
There is enough evidence to show that Al Qaeda is preparing to engage in biological warfare, Noble said.
“It can’t be that we as a world community have to wait for a September 11 type of attack in bio-terrorism before we prepare,” Noble told government officials, police and health experts attending the Asian Terrorism Workshop.
“Institutions that are engaged in any bioscience need to make sure that the controls they have in place are sure that only legitimate scientific investigative activity is going on,” he said.
Police forces worldwide need to be trained, Noble said. They need to know how to investigate bio-terrorism-related cases and how to handle such an attack.
Representatives from 26 Asian countries are attending the three- day conference.
The law enforcement officers were encouraged to coordinate moves aimed at warding off bio-terrorist attacks or days may past prior to the realization that such a calamity has already occurred.
“Unlike other forms of terrorist acts where the impact can be felt almost instantaneously in the aftermath, we may not realize that a biological attack has occurred until perhaps days or even weeks later,” said Ho Peng Kee, Singapore’s senior minister of state for law and home affairs.
“By that time, the terrorist may already have fled the country or succumbed to the biological agent, and all the valuable investigative leads may have disappeared,” Ho noted in a keynote address.
The after-effects of a bio-terrorist attack may be far more widespread “in this age of easy air travel,” he warned, transcending borders and impacting different continents.
Ho called on countries to reach out to one another and increase their level of cooperation and exchange of information.
“Time is of the essence,” he said. Networks must be established and strengthened in times of normalcy so that we are resilient enough to confront and overcome crises.
The Al Qaeda-linked Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), a terrorist group blamed for a spate of attacks and plots throughout Southeast Asia, has relied on bombings, including suicide bombers. A manual discovered in the Philippines in 2003 however indicated interest in acquiring chemical and biological agents.
The JI has been held responsible for the 2002 Bali nightclub attacks that killed 202 people, last October’s attack on the island that left 20 dead and several attacks in Jakarta.
Singapore passed a law in 2005 carrying a life-imprisonment term for anyone using biological agents for non-peaceful purposes.
As a close ally of the United States, the city-state regards itself as a prime target of terrorists and has uncovered JI plans to attack its infrastructure, transport facilities, the US and Israeli embassies.
The US has been urging Asian countries to enact tougher laws against bio-terrorism.
***
_______________________________________________________________________________
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
George Bernard Shaw
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
George Bernard Shaw
-
Mary
- YORWW BIBLE ACADEMY GRADUATE (ALUMNI)
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 10:39 am
- Location: 2003 YORWW Bible Academy Graduate
INTERVIEW-AL QAEDA BIOTERROR THREAT REMAINS REAL -INTERPOL
INTERVIEW-AL QAEDA BIOTERROR THREAT REMAINS REAL -INTERPOL
29 Mar 2006 04:55:22 GMT
Source of Article
Source: Reuters
By Jan Dahinten
SINGAPORE, March 29 (Reuters) - Al Qaeda has the ability to carry out attacks using biochemicals and the threat of a strike remains real, a top Interpol official warned on Wednesday.
John Abbott, chairman of Interpol's bioterrorism sub-committee, said national police forces and health services lacked preparation for an attack using dangerous toxins and had insufficient knowledge and powers to handle such an event.
"There is a threat. Al Qaeda have made it clear ... that they consider the use of chemical and biological agents as acceptable. There have been a few cases around the world in recent times which suggest that there is a capability," Abbott said.
"I think that any person who carefully considers the issues will recognise that it's complacent to assume that we're prepared for anything. Criminals and terrorists are innovative," he told Reuters on the sidelines of a bioterrorism conference attended by Asian law enforcement officials and health experts.
Security officials have long warned of the risk of an al Qaeda attack using biological weapons such as anthrax, ricin, botulinum toxin, smallpox, plague or Ebola.
Al Qaeda manuals on preparation of biowarfare agents were discovered at the group's training camps in Afghanistan after the U.S. invasion of the country in late 2001.
Interpol, the global police body, has stepped up training of police forces on how to handle possible attacks with biological agents, which often take some time to emerge as victims with symptoms of contamination or infection report to hospitals and doctors.
Abbott said many countries still lacked legislation that would enable their authorities to look into potential threats such as the movement of agents and pathogens within countries and across borders.
"It is necessary to criminalise certain activities. We don't want to get in the way of bio-science development. What we want to do is stop people who have a desire to misuse the developments in bio-science from being able to do so."
France-based Interpol last year moved to establish a resource centre at its Lyon headquarters for sharing information between police, health officials and scientists and informing member countries about threats and best practice.
***
29 Mar 2006 04:55:22 GMT
Source of Article
Source: Reuters
By Jan Dahinten
SINGAPORE, March 29 (Reuters) - Al Qaeda has the ability to carry out attacks using biochemicals and the threat of a strike remains real, a top Interpol official warned on Wednesday.
John Abbott, chairman of Interpol's bioterrorism sub-committee, said national police forces and health services lacked preparation for an attack using dangerous toxins and had insufficient knowledge and powers to handle such an event.
"There is a threat. Al Qaeda have made it clear ... that they consider the use of chemical and biological agents as acceptable. There have been a few cases around the world in recent times which suggest that there is a capability," Abbott said.
"I think that any person who carefully considers the issues will recognise that it's complacent to assume that we're prepared for anything. Criminals and terrorists are innovative," he told Reuters on the sidelines of a bioterrorism conference attended by Asian law enforcement officials and health experts.
Security officials have long warned of the risk of an al Qaeda attack using biological weapons such as anthrax, ricin, botulinum toxin, smallpox, plague or Ebola.
Al Qaeda manuals on preparation of biowarfare agents were discovered at the group's training camps in Afghanistan after the U.S. invasion of the country in late 2001.
Interpol, the global police body, has stepped up training of police forces on how to handle possible attacks with biological agents, which often take some time to emerge as victims with symptoms of contamination or infection report to hospitals and doctors.
Abbott said many countries still lacked legislation that would enable their authorities to look into potential threats such as the movement of agents and pathogens within countries and across borders.
"It is necessary to criminalise certain activities. We don't want to get in the way of bio-science development. What we want to do is stop people who have a desire to misuse the developments in bio-science from being able to do so."
France-based Interpol last year moved to establish a resource centre at its Lyon headquarters for sharing information between police, health officials and scientists and informing member countries about threats and best practice.
***
_______________________________________________________________________________
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
George Bernard Shaw
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
George Bernard Shaw
-
Mary
- YORWW BIBLE ACADEMY GRADUATE (ALUMNI)
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 10:39 am
- Location: 2003 YORWW Bible Academy Graduate
DIRE PREDICTION FROM OSAMA'S BODYGUARD
DIRE PREDICTION FROM OSAMA'S BODYGUARD
March 30, 2006
(CBS)
Source of Article
(CBS) A former personal bodyguard of Osama bin Laden says he is certain the al Qaeda leader is planning an attack on the U.S.
In the first television interview with an al Qaeda member close to bin Laden since 9/11, Abu Jandal tells 60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon first-hand details about the world's most wanted man this Sunday, April 2, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
Abu Jandal, who was with bin Laden in Afghanistan from 1996 to 2000, says bin Laden's last tape, on which he threatened consequences to the U.S., is not a threat, but a promise.
"When Sheik Osama promises something, he does it…. So I believe Osama bin Laden is planning a new attack inside the United States, this is certain," he tells Simon in the interview conducted in Yemen earlier this month.
It's been long speculated that bin Laden is hiding in the tribal areas of Pakistan, but Abu Jandal says Afghanistan is the place. "Not Pakistan. I know the Pakistani tribe along the border very well. Yes, they can be very trustworthy and faithful to their religion and ideology, but they are also capable of selling information for nothing," he says.
Even if found, bin Laden will not be captured, says Abu Jandal, who says the al Qaeda leader gave him the authority to kill him if he was surrounded. "If he was going to be captured, Sheik Osama prefers to be killed than captured," he tells Simon. "There was a special gun to be used if Sheik Osama bin Laden was attacked and we were unable to save him, in which case I would have to kill him," says Abu Jandal.
The closest the Americans came to getting bin Laden before 9/11, recounts Abu Jandal, was the U.S. missile attack on al-Qaeda training camps near Khost, Afghanistan, a retaliatory strike for the al-Qaeda bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998. It was luck that saved him the night before the strike. "There was a fork in the road," remembers Abu Jandal, "one road leading to Khost and the training camps and another one leading to Kabul. I was with Sheik Osama in the same vehicle with three guards…he turned to us and said, 'Khost or Kabul?' We told him, 'Let’s just visit Kabul.' Sheik Osama said, 'OK, Kabul.'
So the missile strike the next day failed to get bin Laden, but the man they think provided information that led to it was discovered. "It was the Afghan cook," said Abu Jandal. He says he would have killed the man who betrayed bin Laden himself, but bin Laden forgave him and sent him home. "Sheik Osama even gave him money and told him, 'Go provide for your children.'"
Among the other things he remembers about bin Laden was the way the al Qaeda leader forbade cursing. "I remember once I used the wrong word, so he suspended me from guard duty for three days," says Abu Jandal.
Abu Jandal says the rumor that bin Laden suffered from a kidney problem and needed dialysis was nonsense. "Never. The only problem Sheik Osama suffered from is with his vocal chords. He was affected by missiles that contained some chemicals during the jihad against the Soviets. Only his vocal chords were affected," he tells Simon.
He reveres bin Laden to this day and wishes he were still with him. Abu Jandal must stay in Yemen, however, under an agreement with the government, which detained him for almost two years after the al Qaeda bombing of the U.S.S. Cole. But he has a son. "I have great hopes for him and pray to God that he will finish what his father was unable to finish," Abu Jandal says. "Frankly, I hope that my son gets killed and becomes a martyr for the sake of God almighty."
Produced By Draggan Mihailovich ©MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
***
March 30, 2006
(CBS)
Source of Article
(CBS) A former personal bodyguard of Osama bin Laden says he is certain the al Qaeda leader is planning an attack on the U.S.
In the first television interview with an al Qaeda member close to bin Laden since 9/11, Abu Jandal tells 60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon first-hand details about the world's most wanted man this Sunday, April 2, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
Abu Jandal, who was with bin Laden in Afghanistan from 1996 to 2000, says bin Laden's last tape, on which he threatened consequences to the U.S., is not a threat, but a promise.
"When Sheik Osama promises something, he does it…. So I believe Osama bin Laden is planning a new attack inside the United States, this is certain," he tells Simon in the interview conducted in Yemen earlier this month.
It's been long speculated that bin Laden is hiding in the tribal areas of Pakistan, but Abu Jandal says Afghanistan is the place. "Not Pakistan. I know the Pakistani tribe along the border very well. Yes, they can be very trustworthy and faithful to their religion and ideology, but they are also capable of selling information for nothing," he says.
Even if found, bin Laden will not be captured, says Abu Jandal, who says the al Qaeda leader gave him the authority to kill him if he was surrounded. "If he was going to be captured, Sheik Osama prefers to be killed than captured," he tells Simon. "There was a special gun to be used if Sheik Osama bin Laden was attacked and we were unable to save him, in which case I would have to kill him," says Abu Jandal.
The closest the Americans came to getting bin Laden before 9/11, recounts Abu Jandal, was the U.S. missile attack on al-Qaeda training camps near Khost, Afghanistan, a retaliatory strike for the al-Qaeda bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998. It was luck that saved him the night before the strike. "There was a fork in the road," remembers Abu Jandal, "one road leading to Khost and the training camps and another one leading to Kabul. I was with Sheik Osama in the same vehicle with three guards…he turned to us and said, 'Khost or Kabul?' We told him, 'Let’s just visit Kabul.' Sheik Osama said, 'OK, Kabul.'
So the missile strike the next day failed to get bin Laden, but the man they think provided information that led to it was discovered. "It was the Afghan cook," said Abu Jandal. He says he would have killed the man who betrayed bin Laden himself, but bin Laden forgave him and sent him home. "Sheik Osama even gave him money and told him, 'Go provide for your children.'"
Among the other things he remembers about bin Laden was the way the al Qaeda leader forbade cursing. "I remember once I used the wrong word, so he suspended me from guard duty for three days," says Abu Jandal.
Abu Jandal says the rumor that bin Laden suffered from a kidney problem and needed dialysis was nonsense. "Never. The only problem Sheik Osama suffered from is with his vocal chords. He was affected by missiles that contained some chemicals during the jihad against the Soviets. Only his vocal chords were affected," he tells Simon.
He reveres bin Laden to this day and wishes he were still with him. Abu Jandal must stay in Yemen, however, under an agreement with the government, which detained him for almost two years after the al Qaeda bombing of the U.S.S. Cole. But he has a son. "I have great hopes for him and pray to God that he will finish what his father was unable to finish," Abu Jandal says. "Frankly, I hope that my son gets killed and becomes a martyr for the sake of God almighty."
Produced By Draggan Mihailovich ©MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
***
_______________________________________________________________________________
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
George Bernard Shaw
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
George Bernard Shaw
-
Mary
- YORWW BIBLE ACADEMY GRADUATE (ALUMNI)
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 10:39 am
- Location: 2003 YORWW Bible Academy Graduate
REPORTS: U.S. CONSIDERS IRAN INVASION
REPORTS: U.S. CONSIDERS IRAN INVASION
Attack Would Target Nuclear Facilities
Source of Article
Apr 9, 2006 11:25 am US/Eastern
(CBS) WASHINGTON Plans for a U.S. attack on Iran over its nuclear ambitions are being explored, according to reports by the Washington Post and The New Yorker magazine.
As reporter Seymour Hersh explains in the April 17 issue of The New Yorker, members of the U.S. military, more and more, believe President Bush is leaning toward a "regime change" in Iran as the best way to quell the country's quest for nuclear capabilities.
Hersh quotes one former senior intelligence official as saying that Mr. Bush views Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a "potential Adolph Hitler."
For more than 30 years Hersh's reporting on the military has been controversial, but accurate, including exposing the My Lai massacre in the Vietnam war and the Abu Ghraib scandal in Iraq, reports CBS News correspondent Dave Browde.
The Washington Post reports possible targets for a U.S. attack on Iran include facilities where uranium enrichment plant and a uranium conversion take place, according to current and former officials with the Pentagon and CIA. The Post adds that officials are looking at airstrikes and bombing campaigns, but not a land invasion.
"Surely, the report will spur debate about U.S. military action against Iran, particularly since U.S.-Iran talks regarding Iraq are tentatively scheduled for mid-April and because U.S. military action would be opposed by most world leaders," CBS News foreign affairs analyst Pamela Falk says.
"The U.N. in late March gave Iran one month and asked the international watchdog agency to report back on Iran's compliance on freezing its nuclear program, but according to the Hersh report, the White House has increased its military planning for possible attacks against Iran and has not ruled out using tactical bunker-busting nuclear weapons, in the event negotiations fail," Falk says.
"The unity of the world powers at the United Nations ends with a stern warning, mainly because Russia and China have made no bones about opposing sanctions or harsher action," Falk says, "leaving the Bush administration planning for a coalition of countries to impose sanctions and, according to the Hersh report, military action."
(© MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)
***
Attack Would Target Nuclear Facilities
Source of Article
Apr 9, 2006 11:25 am US/Eastern
(CBS) WASHINGTON Plans for a U.S. attack on Iran over its nuclear ambitions are being explored, according to reports by the Washington Post and The New Yorker magazine.
As reporter Seymour Hersh explains in the April 17 issue of The New Yorker, members of the U.S. military, more and more, believe President Bush is leaning toward a "regime change" in Iran as the best way to quell the country's quest for nuclear capabilities.
Hersh quotes one former senior intelligence official as saying that Mr. Bush views Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a "potential Adolph Hitler."
For more than 30 years Hersh's reporting on the military has been controversial, but accurate, including exposing the My Lai massacre in the Vietnam war and the Abu Ghraib scandal in Iraq, reports CBS News correspondent Dave Browde.
The Washington Post reports possible targets for a U.S. attack on Iran include facilities where uranium enrichment plant and a uranium conversion take place, according to current and former officials with the Pentagon and CIA. The Post adds that officials are looking at airstrikes and bombing campaigns, but not a land invasion.
"Surely, the report will spur debate about U.S. military action against Iran, particularly since U.S.-Iran talks regarding Iraq are tentatively scheduled for mid-April and because U.S. military action would be opposed by most world leaders," CBS News foreign affairs analyst Pamela Falk says.
"The U.N. in late March gave Iran one month and asked the international watchdog agency to report back on Iran's compliance on freezing its nuclear program, but according to the Hersh report, the White House has increased its military planning for possible attacks against Iran and has not ruled out using tactical bunker-busting nuclear weapons, in the event negotiations fail," Falk says.
"The unity of the world powers at the United Nations ends with a stern warning, mainly because Russia and China have made no bones about opposing sanctions or harsher action," Falk says, "leaving the Bush administration planning for a coalition of countries to impose sanctions and, according to the Hersh report, military action."
(© MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)
***
_______________________________________________________________________________
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
George Bernard Shaw
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
George Bernard Shaw
-
WiseButPoorOldMan (Ecclesiastes 9:13-16)
- YORWW CONGREGATION MODERN DAY SERVANT
- Posts: 468
- Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 5:19 pm
- Location: Founder YORWW Bible Institute & Training Center resides YORWW World Headquarters Jamaica, W.I.
- Contact:
U.S. weighs how best to detect nuke threats
U.S. WEIGHS HOW BEST TO DETECT NUKE THREATS
Feds debate costs, merits of proven technology vs. new advances
By Spencer S. Hsu
The Washington Post
Source of Article
Updated: 12:44 a.m. ET April 15, 2006
Beset by delays, cost overruns and technical problems, the U.S. government's quest to defend the nation against a smuggled nuclear weapon or radiological "dirty" bomb is approaching a crossroads.
In coming weeks, the Bush administration will award or initiate contracts worth $3 billion to develop a new generation of rugged and precise radiation monitors and imaging scanners designed to sniff out radioactive material at the nation's borders.
Authorities must choose in part between older, reliable technology of limited effectiveness and new, more costly, less proven devices that promise greater accuracy.
The stakes could hardly be higher: securing U.S. cities from a catastrophic attack with a weapon of mass destruction -- "the biggest threat we face today," as Vice President Cheney said often during the 2004 campaign.
Let down by technology
The government has stumbled repeatedly with similar choices, costing taxpayers billions. In the nearly five years since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration and Congress have poured more than $5 billion into homeland security detection systems, radiological and otherwise, only to find that the best available equipment at the time was often of limited use. It has spent $300 million on an early class of radiation monitors that couldn't tell uranium from cat litter and invested $1.2 billion in airport baggage screening systems that initially were no more effective than the equipment screeners used before.
"A lot of the money we threw out there was wasted because the technology was not so good," said James Jay Carafano, senior fellow for national and homeland security at the Heritage Foundation.
Last month congressional investigators reported that the United States is "unlikely" to meet its goal of installing 3,000 next-generation detectors by September 2009 and projected it will be about $342 million above its anticipated $1.2 billion cost. At the same time, initial testing of new technology produced "mixed" results, while costing more.
The struggle to complete what Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff calls a "mini-Manhattan Project" provides a case study of America's challenges in dealing with the 21st-century perils of terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Misplaced priorities?
To skeptics, even some close to the administration, the focus on stopping a nuclear bomb hidden in a container at the border is a costly fixation on a scenario that -- while nightmarish -- is not supported by intelligence and is overshadowed by other threats.
"This is the equivalent of a comet hitting the planet. Of all the things that are in the world, why are we fixated on this one thing?" Carafano asked. "Scanning containers full of sneakers for a 'nuke in a box' is not a really thoughtful thing."
Former Virginia governor James S. Gilmore III, who led a congressional commission on weapons of mass destruction, said the Dubai port controversy showed how the Bush administration has profited politically from fears of terrorism at ports yet given Americans a false sense of security about conventional attacks, which are more likely.
"They have hyped the threat, and that has been a political advantage," said Gilmore, a former Republican National Committee chairman. "You can't rule out the possibility of something like this happening, but there isn't any evidence that I'm aware of that al-Qaeda or other terrorists have their hands on these weapons."
Acting on the unknown
But many other analysts looking at the data, such as Harvard University proliferation expert Graham T. Allison, conclude otherwise.
Vayl Oxford, director of the Homeland Security office Bush created a year ago today to put nuclear detection efforts back on track, said critics' concerns reflect a Cold War assumption that solid intelligence can be obtained against a terror group. The country must also consider its vulnerabilities and the consequences of the worst catastrophes, he said, which in this case tip the scale toward action.
"If you don't see a direct intelligence report that says there is something there, someone will leap to the conclusion the threat is not there," Oxford said. "But I don't think it's political hype. It's prudent planning to take action on this count. Sitting in hindsight saying 'Why didn't we see it in the intelligence?' is not the kind of hearing I want to go to."
Prompted by influential advocates including Cheney, former NATO ambassador David M. Abshire and former Lockheed Martin Corp. chief Norman R. Augustine, President Bush signed the 14th Homeland Security Presidential Directive last April 15. It consolidated development of countermeasures to a smuggled radioactive weapon that had been split among the Pentagon, the Energy Department and other federal agencies into the new Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, headed by Oxford. The office is designing a national detection system and a global strategy.
The emerging effort calls for thousands of scanners of all types throughout the country. These include backpack or handheld "cellphone" devices, units mounted on vehicles, and stationary portals to scan railcars and shipping containers, Oxford said.
The United States is also working with Canada and Mexico on strategies to deploy detectors and with the United Kingdom to exchange technology, he said.
Feds debate costs, merits of proven technology vs. new advances
By Spencer S. Hsu
The Washington Post
Source of Article
Updated: 12:44 a.m. ET April 15, 2006
Beset by delays, cost overruns and technical problems, the U.S. government's quest to defend the nation against a smuggled nuclear weapon or radiological "dirty" bomb is approaching a crossroads.
In coming weeks, the Bush administration will award or initiate contracts worth $3 billion to develop a new generation of rugged and precise radiation monitors and imaging scanners designed to sniff out radioactive material at the nation's borders.
Authorities must choose in part between older, reliable technology of limited effectiveness and new, more costly, less proven devices that promise greater accuracy.
The stakes could hardly be higher: securing U.S. cities from a catastrophic attack with a weapon of mass destruction -- "the biggest threat we face today," as Vice President Cheney said often during the 2004 campaign.
Let down by technology
The government has stumbled repeatedly with similar choices, costing taxpayers billions. In the nearly five years since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration and Congress have poured more than $5 billion into homeland security detection systems, radiological and otherwise, only to find that the best available equipment at the time was often of limited use. It has spent $300 million on an early class of radiation monitors that couldn't tell uranium from cat litter and invested $1.2 billion in airport baggage screening systems that initially were no more effective than the equipment screeners used before.
"A lot of the money we threw out there was wasted because the technology was not so good," said James Jay Carafano, senior fellow for national and homeland security at the Heritage Foundation.
Last month congressional investigators reported that the United States is "unlikely" to meet its goal of installing 3,000 next-generation detectors by September 2009 and projected it will be about $342 million above its anticipated $1.2 billion cost. At the same time, initial testing of new technology produced "mixed" results, while costing more.
The struggle to complete what Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff calls a "mini-Manhattan Project" provides a case study of America's challenges in dealing with the 21st-century perils of terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Misplaced priorities?
To skeptics, even some close to the administration, the focus on stopping a nuclear bomb hidden in a container at the border is a costly fixation on a scenario that -- while nightmarish -- is not supported by intelligence and is overshadowed by other threats.
"This is the equivalent of a comet hitting the planet. Of all the things that are in the world, why are we fixated on this one thing?" Carafano asked. "Scanning containers full of sneakers for a 'nuke in a box' is not a really thoughtful thing."
Former Virginia governor James S. Gilmore III, who led a congressional commission on weapons of mass destruction, said the Dubai port controversy showed how the Bush administration has profited politically from fears of terrorism at ports yet given Americans a false sense of security about conventional attacks, which are more likely.
"They have hyped the threat, and that has been a political advantage," said Gilmore, a former Republican National Committee chairman. "You can't rule out the possibility of something like this happening, but there isn't any evidence that I'm aware of that al-Qaeda or other terrorists have their hands on these weapons."
Acting on the unknown
But many other analysts looking at the data, such as Harvard University proliferation expert Graham T. Allison, conclude otherwise.
Vayl Oxford, director of the Homeland Security office Bush created a year ago today to put nuclear detection efforts back on track, said critics' concerns reflect a Cold War assumption that solid intelligence can be obtained against a terror group. The country must also consider its vulnerabilities and the consequences of the worst catastrophes, he said, which in this case tip the scale toward action.
"If you don't see a direct intelligence report that says there is something there, someone will leap to the conclusion the threat is not there," Oxford said. "But I don't think it's political hype. It's prudent planning to take action on this count. Sitting in hindsight saying 'Why didn't we see it in the intelligence?' is not the kind of hearing I want to go to."
Prompted by influential advocates including Cheney, former NATO ambassador David M. Abshire and former Lockheed Martin Corp. chief Norman R. Augustine, President Bush signed the 14th Homeland Security Presidential Directive last April 15. It consolidated development of countermeasures to a smuggled radioactive weapon that had been split among the Pentagon, the Energy Department and other federal agencies into the new Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, headed by Oxford. The office is designing a national detection system and a global strategy.
The emerging effort calls for thousands of scanners of all types throughout the country. These include backpack or handheld "cellphone" devices, units mounted on vehicles, and stationary portals to scan railcars and shipping containers, Oxford said.
The United States is also working with Canada and Mexico on strategies to deploy detectors and with the United Kingdom to exchange technology, he said.
"He that is from God listens to the sayings of God..." -- John 8:47
-
Mary
- YORWW BIBLE ACADEMY GRADUATE (ALUMNI)
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 10:39 am
- Location: 2003 YORWW Bible Academy Graduate
IRAN SUICIDE SQUADS 'READY TO RETALIATE'
IRAN SUICIDE SQUADS 'READY TO RETALIATE'
by Aljazeera.net
Sunday 16 April 2006 4:24 AM GMT
Source of Article
Iran has trained battalions of suicide bombers to hit western targets if its nuclear plants are attacked, according to a British newspaper.
The Sunday Times quoted Iranian officials as saying that 40,000 trained suicide bombers were ready to strike Western targets.
Doctor Hassan Abbasi, head of the Centre for Doctrinal Strategic Studies in the Revolutionary Guards, said that 29 Western targets had been identified.
"We are ready to attack American and British sensitive points if they attack Iran's nuclear facilities," he said in a speech, according to The Sunday Times.
He said that some of them were "quite close" to the Iranian border with Iraq.
The Special Unit of Martyr Seekers in the Revolutionary Guards was first spotted in March when members marched in a military parade.
The force wore explosive packs around their waists and held detonators, the newspaper said.
Stand-off
"We are ready to attack American and British sensitive points if they attack Iran’s nuclear facilities"
Hassan Abbasi,
Head of the Centre for Doctrinal Strategic Studies in the Revolutionary Guards
Iran is in a stand-off with the West over its nuclear programme, which the Islamic republic insists is for entirely peaceful purposes.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, announced last Tuesday that the Islamic republic had successfully enriched uranium itself for use as nuclear fuel, sparking a wave of international condemnations.
The International Atomic Energy Agency - the United Nations' nuclear watchdog - is due to present a report on Iran's nuclear programme on April 28.
The United States insists it is seeking a diplomatic solution but has not ruled out the use of force despite opposition from even its closest allies.
***
by Aljazeera.net
Sunday 16 April 2006 4:24 AM GMT
Source of Article
Iran has trained battalions of suicide bombers to hit western targets if its nuclear plants are attacked, according to a British newspaper.
The Sunday Times quoted Iranian officials as saying that 40,000 trained suicide bombers were ready to strike Western targets.
Doctor Hassan Abbasi, head of the Centre for Doctrinal Strategic Studies in the Revolutionary Guards, said that 29 Western targets had been identified.
"We are ready to attack American and British sensitive points if they attack Iran's nuclear facilities," he said in a speech, according to The Sunday Times.
He said that some of them were "quite close" to the Iranian border with Iraq.
The Special Unit of Martyr Seekers in the Revolutionary Guards was first spotted in March when members marched in a military parade.
The force wore explosive packs around their waists and held detonators, the newspaper said.
Stand-off
"We are ready to attack American and British sensitive points if they attack Iran’s nuclear facilities"
Hassan Abbasi,
Head of the Centre for Doctrinal Strategic Studies in the Revolutionary Guards
Iran is in a stand-off with the West over its nuclear programme, which the Islamic republic insists is for entirely peaceful purposes.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, announced last Tuesday that the Islamic republic had successfully enriched uranium itself for use as nuclear fuel, sparking a wave of international condemnations.
The International Atomic Energy Agency - the United Nations' nuclear watchdog - is due to present a report on Iran's nuclear programme on April 28.
The United States insists it is seeking a diplomatic solution but has not ruled out the use of force despite opposition from even its closest allies.
***
_______________________________________________________________________________
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
George Bernard Shaw
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
George Bernard Shaw
-
Mary
- YORWW BIBLE ACADEMY GRADUATE (ALUMNI)
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 10:39 am
- Location: 2003 YORWW Bible Academy Graduate
BIN LADEN PAMPHLET CALLS FOR MUSHARRAF'S KILLING
BIN LADEN PAMPHLET CALLS FOR MUSHARRAF'S KILLING
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE JERUSALEM POST
By Associated Press
Source of Article
May. 7, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A pamphlet purportedly from Osama bin Laden circulated among border tribesmen Sunday, with the al-Qaida chief praying for the assassination of Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, and calling him a "slave" of US President George W. Bush.
While the statement's authenticity was unclear, its initial release Saturday follows a spurt of high-profile militant messages and highlights simmering tensions between Pakistani forces and the insurgents they are battling along the Pakistan-Afghan border.
The pamphlet was distributed by militants in Mir Ali, a town in the North Waziristan tribal region, and reached out to tribesmen living in the area whose homes were destroyed during recent Pakistani military operations for "American pleasure."
It begins with a paragraph in Arabic mentioning bin Laden's name. It then says in Urdu, Pakistan's primary language: "(A) new message by Sheikh Osama bin Mohammed bin Laden to Muslims about the atrocities by the Pakistani army on the tribes of Waziristan, the bloodshed and destruction of their homes."
"I pray to God ... that Bush, Pervez and his army meet the fate that they deserve, and give someone among the lions of God the opportunity to kill this slave of Bush in Pakistan," said the pamphlet, the authenticity of which could not be immediately verified.
Pakistan's army spokesman, Maj. Gen. Shaukat Sultan, declined to comment on the statement's authenticity, but urged the media not to "spread" it.
***
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE JERUSALEM POST
By Associated Press
Source of Article
May. 7, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A pamphlet purportedly from Osama bin Laden circulated among border tribesmen Sunday, with the al-Qaida chief praying for the assassination of Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, and calling him a "slave" of US President George W. Bush.
While the statement's authenticity was unclear, its initial release Saturday follows a spurt of high-profile militant messages and highlights simmering tensions between Pakistani forces and the insurgents they are battling along the Pakistan-Afghan border.
The pamphlet was distributed by militants in Mir Ali, a town in the North Waziristan tribal region, and reached out to tribesmen living in the area whose homes were destroyed during recent Pakistani military operations for "American pleasure."
It begins with a paragraph in Arabic mentioning bin Laden's name. It then says in Urdu, Pakistan's primary language: "(A) new message by Sheikh Osama bin Mohammed bin Laden to Muslims about the atrocities by the Pakistani army on the tribes of Waziristan, the bloodshed and destruction of their homes."
"I pray to God ... that Bush, Pervez and his army meet the fate that they deserve, and give someone among the lions of God the opportunity to kill this slave of Bush in Pakistan," said the pamphlet, the authenticity of which could not be immediately verified.
Pakistan's army spokesman, Maj. Gen. Shaukat Sultan, declined to comment on the statement's authenticity, but urged the media not to "spread" it.
***
_______________________________________________________________________________
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
George Bernard Shaw
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
George Bernard Shaw
-
Mary
- YORWW BIBLE ACADEMY GRADUATE (ALUMNI)
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 10:39 am
- Location: 2003 YORWW Bible Academy Graduate
SYMPOSIUM: AL QAEDA'S NUKES
SYMPOSIUM: AL QAEDA'S NUKES
Source of Article
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 27, 2006
[Securing the United States from terrorist attack will be the focus of the upcoming America’s Truth Forum symposium, ‘Understanding the Threat of Radical Islamist Terrorism,’ taking place in Las Vegas this November 10th and 11th. Dr. Harvey Kushner, Dr. Paul Williams and Hamid Mir will be participating at this event. Go to http://www.americastruthforum.com/ for more details or contact Jeffrey Epstein at (866) 709-3474.]
Just recently, an al-Qaeda field commander in Afghanistan called for Muslims to leave the U.S., particularly the cities of Washington and New York. Some reports suspect that this call is a warning about a potential nuclear attack on the U.S.
Does Al Qaeda have nuclear capability? If not, is it on the verge of acquiring it? What dangers do we face in this context? Is a jihadist WMD attack on U.S. territory an inevitability? What can we do to prevent this horror?
To discuss this issue with us today, Frontpage Symposium has assembled a distinguished panel of experts. Our guests are:
David Dastych, international journalist for over 40 years, now operating his own media agency in Poland. A former Polish covert intelligence agent, he joined the CIA in South Vietnam (1973-1987). Jailed in Poland for his work against the USSR, the Warsaw Pact and communist interests (1987-1990), he was given an eight 8 years' sentence, but communism collapsed in 1989 and he was released. He monitored illegal nuclear trades for an Israeli organization from 1992-1994.
Hamid Mir, a Pakistani journalist who has more than 18 years experience in covering conflicts and wars in Afghanistan, Kashmir, Bosnia, Chechnya, Sri Lanka, Iraq and Lebanon. He has interviewed Osama bin Laden three times. He is an expert on Al Qaeda's nuclear ambitions and has travelled to Russia, Uzbekistan, Iran and Syria in his research work. He is currently working with Geo TV in Islamabad and writing for Jang Group of Newspapers.
Paul Williams, a journalist and the author of The Al Qaeda Connection: International Terrorism, Organized Crime, and the Coming Apocalypse; The Vatican Exposed: Money, Murder, and the Mafia; and Osama's Revenge: The Next 9/11—What the Media and the Government Haven't Told You. He has served as a consultant for the FBI, as editor and publisher of the Metro in Scranton, Pennsylvania, and as an adjunct professor of humanities at the University of Scranton.
and
Harvey W. Kushner, Ph.D., the chair at a major university department of criminal justice. He advises and trains a number of federal agencies and appears regularly in the media. Kushner is a contributing editor for FamilySecurityMatter.org. He is the author of many books on terrorism, including the award-winning Encyclopaedia of Terrorism and the widely quoted Holy War on the Home Front: The Secret Islamic Terror Network in the United States.
FP: David Dastych, Harvey W. Kushner, Paul Williams, and Hamid Mir, welcome to Frontpage Symposium.
Paul Williams, let’s begin with you.
What are the dangers we face right now in terms of a WMD attack by Al Qaeda or another Islamist entity?
Williams: The danger is very real. Accounts of the al Qaeda nukes first appeared in such reputable newspapers as The Jerusalem Report and The London Times, and Arabic magazines, including al-Watan al-Arabi and al-Majallah. These sources verified from British, Israeli, and Russian intelligence sources that bin Laden had purchased tactical nuclear weapons from the Chechen Mafia in 1996.
In subsequent years, the foreign press and intelligence sources, including the CIA, have been able to verify additional sales of off-the-shelf nukes and nuclear materials (highly enriched uranium and plutonium) from the former Soviet Union to al-Qaeda. The sellers included not only by the Chechens but also the Russian Mafia and black-marker arms-dealers, such as Semion Mogilevic from the Ukraine. Such information can be obtained by any journalist with a telephone, a computer, and a library card.
These sales to al-Qaeda have been verified by a host of weapons inspectors, including Hans Blix, former director general of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency. They were even verified by bin Laden and al-Zawahiri in their pronouncements that they have obtained a small arsenal of nuclear weapons from black-market sources.
But these sales are not the scary part. That comes from the ties between bin Laden and Dr. A. Q. Khan and the fact that over 20 nuclear scientists and technicians from Khan's research laboratories in Pakistan worked with al-Qaeda on a regular basis to maintain and modify the weapons that had been purchased and to develop other weapons, including highly portable "bespoke nukes."
Dr. Mahmood and Dr. Majeed, two of the leading officials at the Khan facility, confessed to CIA and ISI interrogators that they participated in al-Qaeda's nuclear projects. The fact that the Chechens possessed the nukes should be no surprise to any reporter or investigator. In 1995, the Chechens under Com. Shamail Basayev planted a radiological bomb in Izmailovsky Park near Moscow. The bomb was made of cesium-137, and, if detonated, would have killed thousands of Russians. This incident represented the first case of a nuke to be deployed as a weapon of terror. Later that same year, Dzokhar Dudayev, the leader of the Chechen Mafia, offered to sell his collection of nuclear weapons to the United States in exchange for U. S. recognition of Chechnya's independence. The Clinton Administration declined and so the weapons were sold to al-Qaeda.
More importantly, there is empirical proof that al-Qaeda possesses nukes. In 2000, British agents posed as recruits from a London mosque to infiltrate al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. In Herat, they saw nuclear weapons being manufactured. Similarly, an al-Qaeda operative was arrested while crossing the Allenby Bridge toward the checkpoint at Ramallah in Israel in a rusty old Volkswagen van. Within the van, Mossad discovered a bomb which turned out to be a highly sophisticated plutonium-implosion device with an explosive yield of 10 kilotons (equivalent to the bomb dropped on Hiroshima). There are more examples of tangible proof, including the canister of uranium 238 that U.S. military officials discovered in a lead canister in Kandahar at the outset of Operation Enduring Freedom.
Few military and intelligence officials question bin Laden's ability to launch his plan for the American Hiroshima. Gen. Eugene Habiger, former Executive Chief of Strategic Weapons at the Pentagon, said that an event of nuclear mega-terrorism on U. S. soil is "not a matter of if, but when." During the 2004 presidential debates, President Bush and Sen. Kerry said that nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists represent the greatest danger facing the American people, while Vice President Cheney, on the campaign trail, warned that a nuclear attack by al-Qaeda appears imminent. Before leaving office, Attorney General John Ashcroft and Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge both voiced that belief that al-Qaeda's plan to nuke cities throughout the country soon might come to fruition.
From the private sector, Warren Buffet, who establishes odds against cataclysmic events for major insurance companies, concluded that an imminent nuclear nightmare within the United States is "virtually a certainty." From the academic community, Dr. Graham Allison, director of Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, said: "Is nuclear mega-terrorism inevitable? Harvard professors are known for being subtle or ambiguous, but I'll try to the clear. 'Is the worst yet to come?' My answer: Bet on it. Yes." Finally, from the mainstream media, Bill Keller, editor of The New York Times, concluded that the only reason for thinking a nuclear attack won't happen is because "it hasn't happened yet," adding that such reasoning represents "terrible logic." And so, the message has been delivered but few are listening, and the threat is real but precious little is being done to avert it.
Kushner: Dr. Williams is on point. He carefully describes why we should take measures to deal with a potential American Hiroshima. Thinking about the unthinkable is necessary given the mindset of our enemy—radical Islam.
Dr. Williams is also on point when he concludes that “precious little is being done to avert” an American Hiroshima. We are more than five years past the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and millions of steel-frame ocean-going containers enter our port without inspection. These 20- and 40-foot containers are crammed with everything from furniture to parts for General Motors, and they can weigh as much as 30 tons each. Each one has a potential to contain a weapon of mass destruction that could be detonated when the ship reaches an American port or offloaded and transported to be detonated in one of our major cities.
Customs and Border protection has stepped up inspections of incoming containers—from 2 percent to approximately 4 percent of the total. Four percent of 8 million means 320,000 get inspected—and 7,680,000 do not. Government officials argue that they look at 100 percent of those that are high risk.
That is not a comforting thought when you consider that terrorists have already used such containers for transport. In 1998, an al Qaeda vessel transported explosives into Mombassa that were used in the East African embassy bombings. And in October 2001, a container headed for Toronto was opened during a stop in Italy. Authorities found inside a suspected al Qaeda member who fitted the liveable container forged documents, electronics equipment, and blueprints and floor plans or a number of facilities throughout North America.
In 2003, Undersecretary for DHS Asa Hutchinson told Congress, “If terrorists used a sea container to conceal a weapon of mass destruction and detonated it on arrival at a port, the impact on global trade and the global economy could be immediate and devastating—all nations would be affected.”
Yes, Dr. Williams is on point—we are doing precious little to counter the threat of an American Hiroshima.
Dastych: Thank you for inviting me to this panel. I happen to know and to work closely with Mr. Mir and Dr. Williams, and I know about Dr. Kushner's achievements. To me a nuclear threat to the United States, posed by al Qaeda, is real. The “American Hiroshima” plan, conceived by Osama bin Laden, is at least 10 years old. The information, summarized here by Dr. Williams, is well documented in several of his books.
I have only one remark: Dzokhar Dudaev, before he was killed by a Russian missile, was President of Islamist Chechnya, and before he was a commander of a squadron of Soviet nuclear-bomber planes and a GRU agent. His offer to sell tactical nukes to the U.S. had a political purpose, but President Clinton had no intention to recognize free Chechnya. There were other means to purchase Dudaev’s nukes, and not to provoke Russia.
In the 1990’s, I had a chance to follow some illegal nuclear deals between Russia (and other post-Soviet states) and other countries, seeking nuclear materials or weapons. I must say that most of these deals were controlled by the Russian special services, the GRU (Military Intelligence) in particular.
Osama bin Laden is not a day-dreamer. He made all possible efforts to obtain nuclear materials and tactical weapons, and to hire Russian and other scientists and technicians to maintain and develop his “small nuclear arsenal”.
The most dangerous connection is not between al Qaeda and the Chechen, or other mafias, but between al Qaeda and the former (or current) members of the Russian Intelligence. And this connection is an established fact, right on American soil. If the Russian Government wanted to convince the U.S. Government of their clean and non-hostile intentions, let them expose the locations of the KGB and GRU nuclear demolition charges, hidden on the territory of the United States. This act could be a great help to the American anti-terrorist activity, and to the protection of the American people.
FP: The Russians have nuclear demolition charges hidden on U.S. territory? What does this mean exactly? Some critics would say that this is just a pie-in-the-sky scare tactic and there is no evidence of this of any kind.
Hamid Mir what are your thoughts about this allegation and possibility?
Mir: Thank you for inviting me to this discussion. I came to know about the nuclear ambitions of Al Qaeda in 1998 when I interviewed Osama bin Ladin the second time in Afghanistan. One ex-Soviet scientist travelled with me from the Pakistani border to Kandhar. Al Qaeda operatives told me that he was looking after their nuclear program. I laughed at their claims. Then I asked Osama about his nuclear ambitions, but he ignored my question at that time. I asked my question again in November 2001 and at that time Osama confirmed that he had nukes.
In the next few years, I came to know that Al Qaeda had a big brigade of nuclear and chemical experts who conducted a dirty bomb test in the mountains of Kunar in 2000. Another Al Qaeda operative, Abu Hamza Al Jazeeri confirmed to me in Afghanistan in 2005 that Al Qaeda had links with Soviet nuclear experts. He visited Ukraine many times between 1995 and 1998 to negotiate with a nuclear scientist. Abu Hamza said that Osama sent special envoys to Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan to contact ex-Soviet agents for their WMD's hidden in Western countries. I think these links are not sponsored by the Russian government; they are private links.
Nobody should underestimate the nuclear threat of Al Qaeda. This threat is not serious only for USA but to all the members of international coalition against terrorism. Osama determined to organize another attack bigger than 9/11.He will try his best to break his own record made on 9/11.
FP: If Osama has nukes, what is he waiting for? And can the panelists expand on the evidence that the Soviets hid WMDs in Western countries?
Williams: A defining characteristic of bin Laden is patience. His favorite Islamic verse is as follows: "I will be patient until Patience is outworn by patience."
He started plotting the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania when he was in the Sudan in 1993; the attack of the USS Cole was more than two years in the making and eight years passed between the first attack on the World Trade Center and the second.
The planned American Hiroshima is enormous in scope. It requires not only development and (in some cases) rebuilding of the weapons along with codification for detonation but also forward deployment, site preparation and precise strategic coordination with scattered cells.
Why the wait? Bin Laden will not allow the attack to take place unless there is certainty of success. His entire resources (including the gains from the poppy fields) have been spent on this operation. After scrutinizing the situation and analyzing the data, Bill Keller, editor of The New York Times, said that the "best reason" for thinking that the nuclear attack by al-Qaeda will NOT happen is because "it hasn't happened yet," adding this conclusion represents "terrible logic."
I agree with him.
Bin Laden can't sit on these weapons for years. They require constant maintenance. At any given time, a tactical nuke exudes a temperature in excess of 100 degrees Fahrenheit. This means that they are prone to oxidation and rust. Moreover, the triggers that emit large quantities of neutrons at high speeds decay rapidly and have short half-lives – most would become useless without maintenance in less than four months. The nuclear cores also are subject to decay and over the course of several years would fall below the critical mass threshold. Though the shells that encase the cores are the most durable parts of the weapons, they, too, are subject to contamination. The tritium used to compensate for the required amount of conventional explosives to compress the fissile core within the compact devices is less of an issue since it has a half-life of 12.3 years. Taking all things into consideration, the attack should occur within the near future.
Regarding the question of buried nukes, Curt Weldon (R-PA), Chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee, announced in 1999 that the Soviets had planted a number of such weapons at strategic locations throughout the U. S. These weapons, Weldon argued, were to be recovered when the Cold War became hot and were to be used for the blowing up of dams, power stations, telecommunications centers, and landing strips for Air Force One. “There is no doubt that the Soviets stored material in this country,” Weldon said. “The question is what and where.”
Two years later, Congressman Weldon’s statement about the buried nukes was verified by Col. Stanislav Lunev, the highest-ranking military spy to defect from the Soviet Union and the leading confidential source on Russia’s nuclear arsenal. Lunev told a Congressional committee that nuclear suitcase bombs, indeed, had been buried in the U. S., although he could not pinpoint the exact locations. Such information, Lunev said, remains secret since Russian officials remain convinced that a nuclear conflict between Russia and the U. S. remains “inevitable” despite the collapse of communism and the spirit of perestroika. The colonel concluded his remarks by saying: “And just now what we are talking about, location of technical nuclear devices, these places we have selected extremely carefully for a long, long period of time, and to believe it is possible to find these places just like that without using extremely, extremely large resources of the country, I don’t think that it would be realistic until the Russian government, which still has the keys to these locations, will disclose their locations."
Col. Lunev’s comments could be dismissed as less than credible, save for the fact that his testimony was upheld by Vasili Mitrakhin, who served as a chief archivist for the KGB. Mitrakhin confirmed to the same committee that secret stockpiles of suitcase nuclear devices had been buried in upstate New York, California, Texas, and Minnesota. FBI Director Louis Freech, in the wake of these reports, ordered a team of nuclear technicians to excavate several sites around Brainerd. The findings of the excavations remain confidential.
Belgian officials, however, testified that they had found three secret depots with radio sets and tactical nukes that had been buried in Belgium by the Soviets during the Cold War.
The number of nukes that remain buried in the United States is anyone's guess. The Soviets produced more than seven hundred portable tactical nukes for the KGB in the thirty year period from 1960 to 1990. These weapons were placed under the care of SPETZNAZ technicians for deployment and detonation. Many of these technicians, during the 1990s, were sought out and employed by al Qaeda.
The threat of the buried nukes is contingent on maintenance. Did these nukes receive proper care? If not, they pose no significant threat to national security. For example, the triggers that emit large quantities of neutrons at high speeds would decay rapidly causing the bomb to produce a pop rather than a boom.
Of infinitely greater concern are the "bespoke nukes" that were developed for al Qaeda by Russian and Chinese scientists and officials from the A. Q. Khan Research Facility. These weapons were developed for the American Hiroshima and received loving care from bin Laden and company.
FP: This is all extremely frightening and depressing.
One hope is that the Soviet nukes on our territory, if they are there, have turned into duds due to lack of maintenance.
But in general, is there any room for optimism here? Any hope that the ultimate nightmare can be stopped somehow?
Kushner: Dr .Williams, Mr. Dastych, and Mr. Mir do indeed paint a very ominous picture. Can we stop this nightmare? Do we hope that missing cold-war nukes are no longer capable of inflicting catastrophic damage?
Yes, we can ponder these questions. We do.
In my latest book, “Holy War on the Home Front,” I write about the Buddhist parable of three blind men asked to describe an object by touch. In describing an elephant, the blind man holding the tail says it’s a snake, the man holding the trunk says it’s a giraffe, and the one holding the leg says it’s a tree stump. None could assembler the “whole” from its separate “pieces.” In the same way, it’s time we stopped allowing the whole of Islam’s Holy War on America to be described by politicians, journalists, and others familiar with only part of it.
The only explanation as to why we continue to ignore radical Islam in America is that demands of political correctness has made us so afraid of being branded racists that we force ourselves to be color blind, identity blind, and gender blind till we end up, quite simply, totally blind.
The rules changed on 9/11. It was radical Islam’s signal that from that day on, all weapons of terror, including nuclear weapons, could and would be used, and that the fight is to the death.
We have to stop fighting the Holy War with a Cold War mentality; stop radical Islam from using our constitutional rights to shield itself; make sure that none of the millions of ocean cargo containers coming to the United States contains a nuclear weapon; and hold our elected officials to one simple unambiguous standard—results.
Had 9/11 not alerted America to the terrorists within it, had the terrorists waited just a few more years, radical Islam inside this country would have reached its goal: America riddled with a fully operational terrorist infrastructure, an environment where Islamic network agents’ homes held nuclear weapons instead of guns, and enough radical Muslim operatives and traitors to undermine this country form within—and they may be closer to it than we think.
Dastych: I agree with Dr. Kushner that we have to stop fighting a terrorist war (Holy War? Jihad?) with an obsolete Cold War mentality. And what is that Cold War mentality? It is a strong belief, formed over the last 61 years, since the first American nuclear test on the 16th of July 1945, that the nuclear proliferation can be controlled by the major state powers.
Even during the Cold War, the U.S.A. and the USSR couldn't help to prevent communist China, India, Pakistan and Israel from obtaining their own nuclear weapons. On the opposite end, the great powers were sometimes instrumental in the promotion of the nuclear proliferation to regional state powers, like France - to Israel, USSR - to India, China - to Pakistan; and recently a regional power: Pakistan to North Korea (through Dr. A.Q. Khan's network).
Efforts were made to persuade other countries to abandon their nuclear ambitions. There were two principal ways of doing so: either by force (by an Israeli attack on the Osirak reactor in Iraq) or by peaceful means, like a conciliatory mission of an Israeli nuclear expert, the late Shalheveth Freier, in Argentina and Brasil, or a voluntary resignation of the nuclear weapons, declared by Nelson Mandela in South Africa, or - recently - by a combination of pressure and persuasion applied to Gaddafi's Libya by the United States. But none of these methods worked in case of North Korea, and probably they also won't work in Iran.
The very fresh, October 9, nuclear test performed by North Korea could begin a "new era" of uncontrolled nuclear proliferation, probably leading to war. And then, the non-state factor: international terrorism. My own experience of the 1990's in monitoring a part of the illegal nuclear market, Mr. Mir's eyewitness encounters with Osama bin Laden, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri and a number of other Jihadists, and Dr. Williams' years of careful research into the problem of nuclear terrorism, menacing the United States - lead me to a rather sinister conclusion: it can't be stopped by methods that could work in the Cold War era.
Since 1945, there were carried out over 2,000 nuclear tests - all by sovereign states. From 1946 until 1983, there happened 16 nuclear crises, including such serious cases as the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, or the Middle East crisis of 1973. In that time, the World survived 107 months of crises, involving threats by nuclear weapons, and lasting from one day (Iran 1946) to 24 months (USA-USSR confrontation in 1983). The great majority of these crises were overcome by the nuclear showmanship of the United States, and only two times (Suez 1956, and Cuba 1962) by an agreement of the U.S. and USSR, following strong demonstrations of nuclear capability of the two super-powers.
Thank God, all these crises never produced a nuclear war, even we had been very close to it. But the present situation is much worse: it's a chaotic world, with the United States as a lone-star super-power, and with Russia and China as the nuclear proliferators and rivals of the U.S.A. Yet, I hope that much can be done to improve our security and to prevent an uncontrolled outburst of a local or regional nuclear war. First of all, we have to fight on the media front: to remove the cowardly and completely unnecessary "political correctness" that prevents the main stream media from reporting the truth about the present nuclear danger.
People in America, and in the West as such, should be informed, timely and precisely, about real and inevitable threats, posed by terrorists and by terror-sponsoring states. But this information has to be verified and supported by specialists. It's a big error, for example, that so few nuclear physicists and other experts display courage and speak up in the media, in stead of taking cover behind the Government's secrecy. In fact, as the nuclear terrorism is concerned, I know only one competent and famous nuclear physicist, who dared to present his views openly: Dr. Sam Cohen, the inventor of the neutron bomb.
To conclude: I am not in favor of "scare-mongering" and of linking the present nuclear terrorist threat to Bible prophecies of "Doomsday" or "Armageddon". This is silly and primitive. The information must be rational, well targeted and timely, if possible, it should be backed by specialists - nuclear scientists and engineers. It should also go through a number of trustworthy media channels, even if it were transferred through the Internet. Ordinary people may be of great help in the process of prevention of terrorist nuclear attacks. But they must be told what to do. A personal remark: after a series of my own articles, and the joint ones, written with Dr. Williams, I am still receiving dozens of e-mails from ordinary people in the United States, Canada and Europe, and even from Muslim countries and Japan. These people usually ask: what should we do? How could we save ourselves? It's our primary task to reply to them, and to tell them that the nuclear threat is not the end of the World.
Mir: I am always very careful in speaking and writing about "American Hiroshima". I am against making sweeping statements. I don't have any evidence that Al Qaeda has access to Russian WMDs hidden in the U.S., but I have met more than two Al Qaeda operators who were involved in the purchase of suitcase nukes from Russia between 1998 and 2001. I am sure that Al Qaeda is prepared to organize new attacks inside USA not only with some suitcase nukes but also with some dirty bombs. I don't want to repeat my mistake of 1998.
What was that mistake? OBL told me in May 1998 that he will attack the U.A. I just ignored his threat. Within three months of my second interview with him, he attacked U.S. embassies in Africa in August 1998. I thought that this was the end but then he attacked the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000. Finally he organized 9/11. Now he is saying that he will attack USA again. I will not underestimate him this time. He is definitely making claims of new attacks after some preparations.
Right now he is succeeding without attacking inside the U.S. September 11 killed around 3000 people. Most of them were innocent civilians, but after 9/11 the U.S. has lost around 3000 soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan without gaining anything. I think the U.S. has lost its war against terror.UK Generals want to come back from Iraq, French Generals are looking for some excuses to come back from Afghanistan. OBL is waiting for more hatred to spread, he will be the ultimate beneficiary of the hatred because this time he wants to become a hero after an attack bigger than 9/11. He would not like to be condemned at least by Muslim masses and that is why he wants Muslims to leave the U.S. After another attack he can say that he is not responsible for the killing of Muslims in the U.S. because he warned them but they never listened.
We have to take his threats seriously and we must try to prevent another attack bigger than 9/11 because another attack inside the U.S. may destabilize the international peace. It may be the beginning of a clash between two civilizations and that is what OBL is dreaming from many years. Would you like to play in his hands?
FP: If you are speaking to me, no I don’t think we should play into Osama’s hands, and I don’t think anyone in the Bush administration wants to do that. I hear a lot of criticism here of U.S. policy in the subtext yet no real alternatives to what needs to be done. With all due respect, I am not sure what you mean when you say that “most” of the victims of 9/11 were “innocent civilians.” Who amongst the victims was not innocent if you don’t mind me asking?
I think it is a bit premature to say that the U.S. has lost its war against terror. The war is on. Two ruthless tyrannies have been overthrown. My question is: do you wish for a U.S. victory in the war on terror? Moreover, what solutions do you propose for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan? Surely you see the disaster and tragedy -- and bloodbath -- that will follow if the U.S. extricates itself overnight?
Mir: I think that all the civilians killed on 9/11 were innocent but there were some military people who lost their lives after an attack on Pentagon the same day. Their status was different from the civilians. Al Qaeda and US military have been fighting against each other from 1993. US military and Pakistani military was together in Somalia in 1993 where Al Qaeda killed more than 20 Pakistani soldiers. All the civilians who were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan by US bombing after 9/11 were also innocent but the status of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters killed by US bombings have a different status.
The problem between Osama bin Laden and the U.S. started after the first Gulf war of 1990. Osama wanted to fight against Saddam Hussein but the Saudi government invited US troops into their lands. The presence of US troops on Saudi soil provided Osama an opportunity to exploit the situation and he announced a Jihad against the U.S.
Now Saddam is arrested, so what is the use of US troops on Saudi soil? Are they promoting democracy in Saudi Arabia? No sir, they are protecting a tyrannical regime of a country where women are banned to drive even vehicles. Don't give me this lesson that US troops have liberated Iraq and Afghanistan in the last five years. They have not contained terror. They have promoted and produced more terror, more hatred and more insecurity.
US policies have provided Al Qaeda a new breeding ground in Iraq. The war against terror was started against those who masterminded the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban and Al Qaeda were on the run in 2002, but after the US invasion of Iraq in 2003,the Taliban and Al Qaeda started regrouping in Afghanistan.
Most of the Al Qaeda fighters migrated to Iraq, like Abu Masab al Zarqawi and established new training camps there. Today Al Qaeda is training hundreds of young people in Iraq and the Taliban are also back in Afghanistan. Come and visit Afghanistan with me, you will see that who is winning this war. There were no suicide attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan before 9/11, but now we see suicide attacks every day.
If the suicide attacks are increasing, if the British and Pakistani troops are trying to make peace deals with Taliban, I am not ready to believe that anybody is winning the war against terror. The world is becoming more unsafe day by day. Several days ago, two rockets with detonators were found just few hundred meters away from my office, which is very close to the President’s house in Islamabad. I was working in my office that day, when rockets were found. I felt that I am living in the most unsafe place. The boys who were arrested in the suspicion of placing rockets close to Musharraf’s office are young medical students. Who radicalised their minds? They were not graduated from religious schools; they just developed hatred out of bad U.S. policies.
The war against terror was not started against two regimes; it was started against Osama bin Ladin and Al Qaeda. Have you arrested or killed Osama? Have you wiped out Al Qaeda? Have you got any WMD's in Iraq? You have only increased the support of Al Qaeda in the Muslim world via the Abu Gharib jail in Iraq.
It’s not only the US which is fighting the war against terror. More than 37 countries have sent their troops in Afghanistan. All of them are fighting this war. I wish a victory for all of them but they cannot win this war by taking dictation from the US. They have to make policy against terrorism according to their own interests and according to the changing ground realities.
Today, Osama bin Ladin is the most popular person in Saudi Arabia. He is popular not because of his ideology but by default, because most of the Saudis don't like the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia. If US troops come back from Saudi Arabia there is no harm. Osama bin Ladin will lose a big excuse to abuse the U.S. Stop supporting tyrannical regimes and dictators in our part of the world. This is the only way of containing the growing hatred against the U.S. Promote real democracy, don't fear that Hamas-like movements will come to power through democracy; engage them in talks. Strengthen the U.N. Use U.N. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of using US and NATO forces. If the U.N. forces can take over South Lebanon from Hizbollah, then the same UN forces can be used in Iraq and Afghanistan. Use forces of Asian and African countries in Iraq and Afghanistan, instead of using western forces.
We see disaster and tragedy every day around us. It is increasing. The West and its allies have lost the so-called war on terrorism. Now they are pushing us to a clash of civilizations.
FP: The innocent civilians who have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan by U.S. bombing have died as regrettable and unintended tragedies of war. The U.S. did not and does not seek to kill innocent civilians, and it always tries its best, as do the Israelis, to keep civilian casualties and deaths as low as possible. Jihadists kill innocents intentionally. Killing innocent life is their main purpose. There is a big difference here and no moral analogy.
Yes, the U.S. liberated Iraq and Afghanistan from two vicious and sadistic fascist regimes. Unfortunately, there are totalitarian forces who do not wish democracy to be planted in those two nations. So they perpetrate terror. If the U.S. withdraws from this conflict, a bloodbath will follow and the forces of radical Islam and jihad will be emboldened everywhere. I don’t understand what is so complicated about this and why it is difficult to understand how crucial it is that the U.S. prevails in its missions in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
The point that many Muslim terrorists’ minds are radicalized by “bad” U.S. policies, in my view, is illegitimate. I’ll tell you what “radicalizes” many of those who end up perpetrating terror: freedom and liberty. Those who seek comfort in totalitarian structures hate those forces that threaten to bring individual freedom and liberty into their spheres and so they seek to destroy them. The terrorists who wage their violence are not inspired by anger toward U.S. policies; they do what they do because they are terrified of the prospect that democracy, and the freedom of conscience of every individual, and the rights of women, minorities and homosexuals, might penetrate their own cultures.
Yes, there is a great complexity in our involvement with the Saudis and with some of the regimes we are allied with the Middle East. There also exists a great danger of the devil we know being better than the devil we don’t know. Some changes might be required in the near future, especially with the Saudis, but it is unwise just to alter numerous policies overnight without the realization that more dangerous threats can emerge in the vacuum we leave behind.
Mr. Mir, your argument that U.N. forces, and Asian and African countries, should be left to do the job in Iraq and Afghanistan is, I hope, your sense of humor. The terror war has not been lost. But if we leave it to the U.N. to defeat Islamism, it will be lost for sure.
Paul Williams, any observations on Mr. Mir’s diagnosis and prescriptions for the conflict we are in?
Williams: We have regressed from a discussion of nuclear terrorism to an evaluation of the purpose and mission of the United Nations (an organization which former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu aptly labelled 'United Nothing'). This switch in discussion is tantamount to transforming a moose into a mouse. All clear thinking, as St. Thomas Aquinas taught us, comes from making distinctions between subjects. For this reason, I'll opt to say nothing with the hope that heads become cleared and intelligent discussion can proceed within the set parameters.
FP: Well thank you sir. Unfortunately we are nearing the end of our discussion.
Yes, our topic in this symposium was nuclear terrorism and I am grateful to all of you for having provided your wisdom on it.
Even if the topic of a symposium was the cause of global warming and someone started to engage in Holocaust or Gulag Denial, unfortunately I would have to stray from the topic and counter such denial.
So the same with our symposium. If someone is going to start applying moral equivalency between our side and the terrorists, I simply can’t let it go. Just like I can't overlook the diagnosis that Islamist rage at us has more to do with our policies than with a hatred of freedom. Moreover, I can’t let go unchecked a prescription (i.e. cut-and-run from Iraq) that will result in a nightmarish setback for us in this terror war and in a horrible bloodbath that will follow.
More importantly, these issues are not disconnected from our main topic today. Why we are in this war and the importance of us maintaining the course in Iraq and Afghanistan is directly connected to the danger of nuclear terror. If we cut and run, and if we confuse why and how our enemies hate us, we will facilitate the possibility of a nuclear horror being perpetrated against us.
In any case, David Dastych, your final comment please.
Dastych: Thank you, Jamie, for allowing me to add my final comments. Even, if we went a bit astray from the main topic - the nuclear terrorist threat - we have to consider the opinions and the feelings of our Muslim allies and friends, such as Mr. Hamid Mir, whom I trust and understand. He shows us that, in fact, the Muslim world developed a strong hatred of the United States and of the West in general. I think that some erroneous policies or practices of the United States (like Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo abuses, or unjustified bombing) are not the main cause of this hatred. Its principal cause is the radicalization of Islam in some countries, strongly supported by the Saudi Wahhabi religious centers and by Saudi financial contributions.
In the U.S. and in Europe, and also in Africa, most of the new mosques are built by Saudi money and run by radical clerics. This is the "landscape" for the radicalization of Muslim youths in the Western countries and beyond them. But the radical slogans, demonstrations, staged hatred rallies (like the recent anti-Benedict campaign) have not much in common with the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and with providing terrorists with these weapons. At this moment we have to make a clear distinction between some states, pursuing nuclear weaponization programs for their own sake (defense, protection, power ambitions) and these states, their governments or other organizations like some intelligence agencies, who deal with terrorists and do not hesitate to sell nuclear materials or weapons to them.
From my own experience and from what I can get from other sources, I conclude that some post-Soviet states, mainly Russia, were the main providers of small, tactical nuclear weapons and of nuclear materials to terrorist organizations, often through organized crime contacts. I cannot exclude from this group other states or organizations (like the already broken Dr. Khan's network in Pakistan, like Libya or Syria, like North Korea and Iran). Therefore, I would like to repeat my previous statement that state-terrorist links are the most dangerous element of the present nuclear threat to the United States, its military forces and institutions abroad, and to Europe and other regions of the world.
And now: what should be done to push back and stop this threat? Apart from what is already done and being done by the U.S. Government agencies and similar institutions of our allies (Britain, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Israel, Pakistan, Turkey, Poland and many other), there is a need for a multi-national, based in several countries, highly mobile and effective Special Force to intervene at any place of the globe, where a WMD (not only nuclear) threat has been identified and uncovered.
Efficient intelligence, based on technical and human means, should be used to discover and locate the WMD plots, and a mobile force should be immediately used to kill or capture the perpetrators and to seize the weapons. In addition to that, true and timely information and education should be provided to all citizens by the media, including the mainstream media. Ordinary people, living in the U.S., in Europe and other countries, can be of great help to the authorities in detecting dangerous activities. But they have to be told what to look for.
As to the wars and other operations against terrorists: the U.S., NATO and other allied military forces should stay in Iraq and in Afghanistan as long as it will be necessary to fight the terrorists and radicals. To withdraw now, without a break-through, could be a sign of weakness and an encouragement to the terrorists and radicals to continue their fight. The U.S. government should examine a possibility to withdraw its military forces from Saudi Arabia, leaving the Land of Two Holy Places to the Muslims. It could be a sign of good will.
FP: David Dastych, Harvey W. Kushner, Paul Williams, and Hamid Mir, thank you for joining Frontpage Symposium.
[Securing the United States from terrorist attack will be the focus of the upcoming America’s Truth Forum symposium, ‘Understanding the Threat of Radical Islamist Terrorism,’ taking place in Las Vegas this November 10th and 11th. Dr. Harvey Kushner, Dr. Paul Williams and Hamid Mir will be participating at this event. Go to http://www.americastruthforum.com/ for more details or contact Jeffrey Epstein at (866) 709-3474.]
***
Source of Article
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 27, 2006
[Securing the United States from terrorist attack will be the focus of the upcoming America’s Truth Forum symposium, ‘Understanding the Threat of Radical Islamist Terrorism,’ taking place in Las Vegas this November 10th and 11th. Dr. Harvey Kushner, Dr. Paul Williams and Hamid Mir will be participating at this event. Go to http://www.americastruthforum.com/ for more details or contact Jeffrey Epstein at (866) 709-3474.]
Just recently, an al-Qaeda field commander in Afghanistan called for Muslims to leave the U.S., particularly the cities of Washington and New York. Some reports suspect that this call is a warning about a potential nuclear attack on the U.S.
Does Al Qaeda have nuclear capability? If not, is it on the verge of acquiring it? What dangers do we face in this context? Is a jihadist WMD attack on U.S. territory an inevitability? What can we do to prevent this horror?
To discuss this issue with us today, Frontpage Symposium has assembled a distinguished panel of experts. Our guests are:
David Dastych, international journalist for over 40 years, now operating his own media agency in Poland. A former Polish covert intelligence agent, he joined the CIA in South Vietnam (1973-1987). Jailed in Poland for his work against the USSR, the Warsaw Pact and communist interests (1987-1990), he was given an eight 8 years' sentence, but communism collapsed in 1989 and he was released. He monitored illegal nuclear trades for an Israeli organization from 1992-1994.
Hamid Mir, a Pakistani journalist who has more than 18 years experience in covering conflicts and wars in Afghanistan, Kashmir, Bosnia, Chechnya, Sri Lanka, Iraq and Lebanon. He has interviewed Osama bin Laden three times. He is an expert on Al Qaeda's nuclear ambitions and has travelled to Russia, Uzbekistan, Iran and Syria in his research work. He is currently working with Geo TV in Islamabad and writing for Jang Group of Newspapers.
Paul Williams, a journalist and the author of The Al Qaeda Connection: International Terrorism, Organized Crime, and the Coming Apocalypse; The Vatican Exposed: Money, Murder, and the Mafia; and Osama's Revenge: The Next 9/11—What the Media and the Government Haven't Told You. He has served as a consultant for the FBI, as editor and publisher of the Metro in Scranton, Pennsylvania, and as an adjunct professor of humanities at the University of Scranton.
and
Harvey W. Kushner, Ph.D., the chair at a major university department of criminal justice. He advises and trains a number of federal agencies and appears regularly in the media. Kushner is a contributing editor for FamilySecurityMatter.org. He is the author of many books on terrorism, including the award-winning Encyclopaedia of Terrorism and the widely quoted Holy War on the Home Front: The Secret Islamic Terror Network in the United States.
FP: David Dastych, Harvey W. Kushner, Paul Williams, and Hamid Mir, welcome to Frontpage Symposium.
Paul Williams, let’s begin with you.
What are the dangers we face right now in terms of a WMD attack by Al Qaeda or another Islamist entity?
Williams: The danger is very real. Accounts of the al Qaeda nukes first appeared in such reputable newspapers as The Jerusalem Report and The London Times, and Arabic magazines, including al-Watan al-Arabi and al-Majallah. These sources verified from British, Israeli, and Russian intelligence sources that bin Laden had purchased tactical nuclear weapons from the Chechen Mafia in 1996.
In subsequent years, the foreign press and intelligence sources, including the CIA, have been able to verify additional sales of off-the-shelf nukes and nuclear materials (highly enriched uranium and plutonium) from the former Soviet Union to al-Qaeda. The sellers included not only by the Chechens but also the Russian Mafia and black-marker arms-dealers, such as Semion Mogilevic from the Ukraine. Such information can be obtained by any journalist with a telephone, a computer, and a library card.
These sales to al-Qaeda have been verified by a host of weapons inspectors, including Hans Blix, former director general of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency. They were even verified by bin Laden and al-Zawahiri in their pronouncements that they have obtained a small arsenal of nuclear weapons from black-market sources.
But these sales are not the scary part. That comes from the ties between bin Laden and Dr. A. Q. Khan and the fact that over 20 nuclear scientists and technicians from Khan's research laboratories in Pakistan worked with al-Qaeda on a regular basis to maintain and modify the weapons that had been purchased and to develop other weapons, including highly portable "bespoke nukes."
Dr. Mahmood and Dr. Majeed, two of the leading officials at the Khan facility, confessed to CIA and ISI interrogators that they participated in al-Qaeda's nuclear projects. The fact that the Chechens possessed the nukes should be no surprise to any reporter or investigator. In 1995, the Chechens under Com. Shamail Basayev planted a radiological bomb in Izmailovsky Park near Moscow. The bomb was made of cesium-137, and, if detonated, would have killed thousands of Russians. This incident represented the first case of a nuke to be deployed as a weapon of terror. Later that same year, Dzokhar Dudayev, the leader of the Chechen Mafia, offered to sell his collection of nuclear weapons to the United States in exchange for U. S. recognition of Chechnya's independence. The Clinton Administration declined and so the weapons were sold to al-Qaeda.
More importantly, there is empirical proof that al-Qaeda possesses nukes. In 2000, British agents posed as recruits from a London mosque to infiltrate al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. In Herat, they saw nuclear weapons being manufactured. Similarly, an al-Qaeda operative was arrested while crossing the Allenby Bridge toward the checkpoint at Ramallah in Israel in a rusty old Volkswagen van. Within the van, Mossad discovered a bomb which turned out to be a highly sophisticated plutonium-implosion device with an explosive yield of 10 kilotons (equivalent to the bomb dropped on Hiroshima). There are more examples of tangible proof, including the canister of uranium 238 that U.S. military officials discovered in a lead canister in Kandahar at the outset of Operation Enduring Freedom.
Few military and intelligence officials question bin Laden's ability to launch his plan for the American Hiroshima. Gen. Eugene Habiger, former Executive Chief of Strategic Weapons at the Pentagon, said that an event of nuclear mega-terrorism on U. S. soil is "not a matter of if, but when." During the 2004 presidential debates, President Bush and Sen. Kerry said that nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists represent the greatest danger facing the American people, while Vice President Cheney, on the campaign trail, warned that a nuclear attack by al-Qaeda appears imminent. Before leaving office, Attorney General John Ashcroft and Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge both voiced that belief that al-Qaeda's plan to nuke cities throughout the country soon might come to fruition.
From the private sector, Warren Buffet, who establishes odds against cataclysmic events for major insurance companies, concluded that an imminent nuclear nightmare within the United States is "virtually a certainty." From the academic community, Dr. Graham Allison, director of Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, said: "Is nuclear mega-terrorism inevitable? Harvard professors are known for being subtle or ambiguous, but I'll try to the clear. 'Is the worst yet to come?' My answer: Bet on it. Yes." Finally, from the mainstream media, Bill Keller, editor of The New York Times, concluded that the only reason for thinking a nuclear attack won't happen is because "it hasn't happened yet," adding that such reasoning represents "terrible logic." And so, the message has been delivered but few are listening, and the threat is real but precious little is being done to avert it.
Kushner: Dr. Williams is on point. He carefully describes why we should take measures to deal with a potential American Hiroshima. Thinking about the unthinkable is necessary given the mindset of our enemy—radical Islam.
Dr. Williams is also on point when he concludes that “precious little is being done to avert” an American Hiroshima. We are more than five years past the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and millions of steel-frame ocean-going containers enter our port without inspection. These 20- and 40-foot containers are crammed with everything from furniture to parts for General Motors, and they can weigh as much as 30 tons each. Each one has a potential to contain a weapon of mass destruction that could be detonated when the ship reaches an American port or offloaded and transported to be detonated in one of our major cities.
Customs and Border protection has stepped up inspections of incoming containers—from 2 percent to approximately 4 percent of the total. Four percent of 8 million means 320,000 get inspected—and 7,680,000 do not. Government officials argue that they look at 100 percent of those that are high risk.
That is not a comforting thought when you consider that terrorists have already used such containers for transport. In 1998, an al Qaeda vessel transported explosives into Mombassa that were used in the East African embassy bombings. And in October 2001, a container headed for Toronto was opened during a stop in Italy. Authorities found inside a suspected al Qaeda member who fitted the liveable container forged documents, electronics equipment, and blueprints and floor plans or a number of facilities throughout North America.
In 2003, Undersecretary for DHS Asa Hutchinson told Congress, “If terrorists used a sea container to conceal a weapon of mass destruction and detonated it on arrival at a port, the impact on global trade and the global economy could be immediate and devastating—all nations would be affected.”
Yes, Dr. Williams is on point—we are doing precious little to counter the threat of an American Hiroshima.
Dastych: Thank you for inviting me to this panel. I happen to know and to work closely with Mr. Mir and Dr. Williams, and I know about Dr. Kushner's achievements. To me a nuclear threat to the United States, posed by al Qaeda, is real. The “American Hiroshima” plan, conceived by Osama bin Laden, is at least 10 years old. The information, summarized here by Dr. Williams, is well documented in several of his books.
I have only one remark: Dzokhar Dudaev, before he was killed by a Russian missile, was President of Islamist Chechnya, and before he was a commander of a squadron of Soviet nuclear-bomber planes and a GRU agent. His offer to sell tactical nukes to the U.S. had a political purpose, but President Clinton had no intention to recognize free Chechnya. There were other means to purchase Dudaev’s nukes, and not to provoke Russia.
In the 1990’s, I had a chance to follow some illegal nuclear deals between Russia (and other post-Soviet states) and other countries, seeking nuclear materials or weapons. I must say that most of these deals were controlled by the Russian special services, the GRU (Military Intelligence) in particular.
Osama bin Laden is not a day-dreamer. He made all possible efforts to obtain nuclear materials and tactical weapons, and to hire Russian and other scientists and technicians to maintain and develop his “small nuclear arsenal”.
The most dangerous connection is not between al Qaeda and the Chechen, or other mafias, but between al Qaeda and the former (or current) members of the Russian Intelligence. And this connection is an established fact, right on American soil. If the Russian Government wanted to convince the U.S. Government of their clean and non-hostile intentions, let them expose the locations of the KGB and GRU nuclear demolition charges, hidden on the territory of the United States. This act could be a great help to the American anti-terrorist activity, and to the protection of the American people.
FP: The Russians have nuclear demolition charges hidden on U.S. territory? What does this mean exactly? Some critics would say that this is just a pie-in-the-sky scare tactic and there is no evidence of this of any kind.
Hamid Mir what are your thoughts about this allegation and possibility?
Mir: Thank you for inviting me to this discussion. I came to know about the nuclear ambitions of Al Qaeda in 1998 when I interviewed Osama bin Ladin the second time in Afghanistan. One ex-Soviet scientist travelled with me from the Pakistani border to Kandhar. Al Qaeda operatives told me that he was looking after their nuclear program. I laughed at their claims. Then I asked Osama about his nuclear ambitions, but he ignored my question at that time. I asked my question again in November 2001 and at that time Osama confirmed that he had nukes.
In the next few years, I came to know that Al Qaeda had a big brigade of nuclear and chemical experts who conducted a dirty bomb test in the mountains of Kunar in 2000. Another Al Qaeda operative, Abu Hamza Al Jazeeri confirmed to me in Afghanistan in 2005 that Al Qaeda had links with Soviet nuclear experts. He visited Ukraine many times between 1995 and 1998 to negotiate with a nuclear scientist. Abu Hamza said that Osama sent special envoys to Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan to contact ex-Soviet agents for their WMD's hidden in Western countries. I think these links are not sponsored by the Russian government; they are private links.
Nobody should underestimate the nuclear threat of Al Qaeda. This threat is not serious only for USA but to all the members of international coalition against terrorism. Osama determined to organize another attack bigger than 9/11.He will try his best to break his own record made on 9/11.
FP: If Osama has nukes, what is he waiting for? And can the panelists expand on the evidence that the Soviets hid WMDs in Western countries?
Williams: A defining characteristic of bin Laden is patience. His favorite Islamic verse is as follows: "I will be patient until Patience is outworn by patience."
He started plotting the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania when he was in the Sudan in 1993; the attack of the USS Cole was more than two years in the making and eight years passed between the first attack on the World Trade Center and the second.
The planned American Hiroshima is enormous in scope. It requires not only development and (in some cases) rebuilding of the weapons along with codification for detonation but also forward deployment, site preparation and precise strategic coordination with scattered cells.
Why the wait? Bin Laden will not allow the attack to take place unless there is certainty of success. His entire resources (including the gains from the poppy fields) have been spent on this operation. After scrutinizing the situation and analyzing the data, Bill Keller, editor of The New York Times, said that the "best reason" for thinking that the nuclear attack by al-Qaeda will NOT happen is because "it hasn't happened yet," adding this conclusion represents "terrible logic."
I agree with him.
Bin Laden can't sit on these weapons for years. They require constant maintenance. At any given time, a tactical nuke exudes a temperature in excess of 100 degrees Fahrenheit. This means that they are prone to oxidation and rust. Moreover, the triggers that emit large quantities of neutrons at high speeds decay rapidly and have short half-lives – most would become useless without maintenance in less than four months. The nuclear cores also are subject to decay and over the course of several years would fall below the critical mass threshold. Though the shells that encase the cores are the most durable parts of the weapons, they, too, are subject to contamination. The tritium used to compensate for the required amount of conventional explosives to compress the fissile core within the compact devices is less of an issue since it has a half-life of 12.3 years. Taking all things into consideration, the attack should occur within the near future.
Regarding the question of buried nukes, Curt Weldon (R-PA), Chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee, announced in 1999 that the Soviets had planted a number of such weapons at strategic locations throughout the U. S. These weapons, Weldon argued, were to be recovered when the Cold War became hot and were to be used for the blowing up of dams, power stations, telecommunications centers, and landing strips for Air Force One. “There is no doubt that the Soviets stored material in this country,” Weldon said. “The question is what and where.”
Two years later, Congressman Weldon’s statement about the buried nukes was verified by Col. Stanislav Lunev, the highest-ranking military spy to defect from the Soviet Union and the leading confidential source on Russia’s nuclear arsenal. Lunev told a Congressional committee that nuclear suitcase bombs, indeed, had been buried in the U. S., although he could not pinpoint the exact locations. Such information, Lunev said, remains secret since Russian officials remain convinced that a nuclear conflict between Russia and the U. S. remains “inevitable” despite the collapse of communism and the spirit of perestroika. The colonel concluded his remarks by saying: “And just now what we are talking about, location of technical nuclear devices, these places we have selected extremely carefully for a long, long period of time, and to believe it is possible to find these places just like that without using extremely, extremely large resources of the country, I don’t think that it would be realistic until the Russian government, which still has the keys to these locations, will disclose their locations."
Col. Lunev’s comments could be dismissed as less than credible, save for the fact that his testimony was upheld by Vasili Mitrakhin, who served as a chief archivist for the KGB. Mitrakhin confirmed to the same committee that secret stockpiles of suitcase nuclear devices had been buried in upstate New York, California, Texas, and Minnesota. FBI Director Louis Freech, in the wake of these reports, ordered a team of nuclear technicians to excavate several sites around Brainerd. The findings of the excavations remain confidential.
Belgian officials, however, testified that they had found three secret depots with radio sets and tactical nukes that had been buried in Belgium by the Soviets during the Cold War.
The number of nukes that remain buried in the United States is anyone's guess. The Soviets produced more than seven hundred portable tactical nukes for the KGB in the thirty year period from 1960 to 1990. These weapons were placed under the care of SPETZNAZ technicians for deployment and detonation. Many of these technicians, during the 1990s, were sought out and employed by al Qaeda.
The threat of the buried nukes is contingent on maintenance. Did these nukes receive proper care? If not, they pose no significant threat to national security. For example, the triggers that emit large quantities of neutrons at high speeds would decay rapidly causing the bomb to produce a pop rather than a boom.
Of infinitely greater concern are the "bespoke nukes" that were developed for al Qaeda by Russian and Chinese scientists and officials from the A. Q. Khan Research Facility. These weapons were developed for the American Hiroshima and received loving care from bin Laden and company.
FP: This is all extremely frightening and depressing.
One hope is that the Soviet nukes on our territory, if they are there, have turned into duds due to lack of maintenance.
But in general, is there any room for optimism here? Any hope that the ultimate nightmare can be stopped somehow?
Kushner: Dr .Williams, Mr. Dastych, and Mr. Mir do indeed paint a very ominous picture. Can we stop this nightmare? Do we hope that missing cold-war nukes are no longer capable of inflicting catastrophic damage?
Yes, we can ponder these questions. We do.
In my latest book, “Holy War on the Home Front,” I write about the Buddhist parable of three blind men asked to describe an object by touch. In describing an elephant, the blind man holding the tail says it’s a snake, the man holding the trunk says it’s a giraffe, and the one holding the leg says it’s a tree stump. None could assembler the “whole” from its separate “pieces.” In the same way, it’s time we stopped allowing the whole of Islam’s Holy War on America to be described by politicians, journalists, and others familiar with only part of it.
The only explanation as to why we continue to ignore radical Islam in America is that demands of political correctness has made us so afraid of being branded racists that we force ourselves to be color blind, identity blind, and gender blind till we end up, quite simply, totally blind.
The rules changed on 9/11. It was radical Islam’s signal that from that day on, all weapons of terror, including nuclear weapons, could and would be used, and that the fight is to the death.
We have to stop fighting the Holy War with a Cold War mentality; stop radical Islam from using our constitutional rights to shield itself; make sure that none of the millions of ocean cargo containers coming to the United States contains a nuclear weapon; and hold our elected officials to one simple unambiguous standard—results.
Had 9/11 not alerted America to the terrorists within it, had the terrorists waited just a few more years, radical Islam inside this country would have reached its goal: America riddled with a fully operational terrorist infrastructure, an environment where Islamic network agents’ homes held nuclear weapons instead of guns, and enough radical Muslim operatives and traitors to undermine this country form within—and they may be closer to it than we think.
Dastych: I agree with Dr. Kushner that we have to stop fighting a terrorist war (Holy War? Jihad?) with an obsolete Cold War mentality. And what is that Cold War mentality? It is a strong belief, formed over the last 61 years, since the first American nuclear test on the 16th of July 1945, that the nuclear proliferation can be controlled by the major state powers.
Even during the Cold War, the U.S.A. and the USSR couldn't help to prevent communist China, India, Pakistan and Israel from obtaining their own nuclear weapons. On the opposite end, the great powers were sometimes instrumental in the promotion of the nuclear proliferation to regional state powers, like France - to Israel, USSR - to India, China - to Pakistan; and recently a regional power: Pakistan to North Korea (through Dr. A.Q. Khan's network).
Efforts were made to persuade other countries to abandon their nuclear ambitions. There were two principal ways of doing so: either by force (by an Israeli attack on the Osirak reactor in Iraq) or by peaceful means, like a conciliatory mission of an Israeli nuclear expert, the late Shalheveth Freier, in Argentina and Brasil, or a voluntary resignation of the nuclear weapons, declared by Nelson Mandela in South Africa, or - recently - by a combination of pressure and persuasion applied to Gaddafi's Libya by the United States. But none of these methods worked in case of North Korea, and probably they also won't work in Iran.
The very fresh, October 9, nuclear test performed by North Korea could begin a "new era" of uncontrolled nuclear proliferation, probably leading to war. And then, the non-state factor: international terrorism. My own experience of the 1990's in monitoring a part of the illegal nuclear market, Mr. Mir's eyewitness encounters with Osama bin Laden, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri and a number of other Jihadists, and Dr. Williams' years of careful research into the problem of nuclear terrorism, menacing the United States - lead me to a rather sinister conclusion: it can't be stopped by methods that could work in the Cold War era.
Since 1945, there were carried out over 2,000 nuclear tests - all by sovereign states. From 1946 until 1983, there happened 16 nuclear crises, including such serious cases as the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, or the Middle East crisis of 1973. In that time, the World survived 107 months of crises, involving threats by nuclear weapons, and lasting from one day (Iran 1946) to 24 months (USA-USSR confrontation in 1983). The great majority of these crises were overcome by the nuclear showmanship of the United States, and only two times (Suez 1956, and Cuba 1962) by an agreement of the U.S. and USSR, following strong demonstrations of nuclear capability of the two super-powers.
Thank God, all these crises never produced a nuclear war, even we had been very close to it. But the present situation is much worse: it's a chaotic world, with the United States as a lone-star super-power, and with Russia and China as the nuclear proliferators and rivals of the U.S.A. Yet, I hope that much can be done to improve our security and to prevent an uncontrolled outburst of a local or regional nuclear war. First of all, we have to fight on the media front: to remove the cowardly and completely unnecessary "political correctness" that prevents the main stream media from reporting the truth about the present nuclear danger.
People in America, and in the West as such, should be informed, timely and precisely, about real and inevitable threats, posed by terrorists and by terror-sponsoring states. But this information has to be verified and supported by specialists. It's a big error, for example, that so few nuclear physicists and other experts display courage and speak up in the media, in stead of taking cover behind the Government's secrecy. In fact, as the nuclear terrorism is concerned, I know only one competent and famous nuclear physicist, who dared to present his views openly: Dr. Sam Cohen, the inventor of the neutron bomb.
To conclude: I am not in favor of "scare-mongering" and of linking the present nuclear terrorist threat to Bible prophecies of "Doomsday" or "Armageddon". This is silly and primitive. The information must be rational, well targeted and timely, if possible, it should be backed by specialists - nuclear scientists and engineers. It should also go through a number of trustworthy media channels, even if it were transferred through the Internet. Ordinary people may be of great help in the process of prevention of terrorist nuclear attacks. But they must be told what to do. A personal remark: after a series of my own articles, and the joint ones, written with Dr. Williams, I am still receiving dozens of e-mails from ordinary people in the United States, Canada and Europe, and even from Muslim countries and Japan. These people usually ask: what should we do? How could we save ourselves? It's our primary task to reply to them, and to tell them that the nuclear threat is not the end of the World.
Mir: I am always very careful in speaking and writing about "American Hiroshima". I am against making sweeping statements. I don't have any evidence that Al Qaeda has access to Russian WMDs hidden in the U.S., but I have met more than two Al Qaeda operators who were involved in the purchase of suitcase nukes from Russia between 1998 and 2001. I am sure that Al Qaeda is prepared to organize new attacks inside USA not only with some suitcase nukes but also with some dirty bombs. I don't want to repeat my mistake of 1998.
What was that mistake? OBL told me in May 1998 that he will attack the U.A. I just ignored his threat. Within three months of my second interview with him, he attacked U.S. embassies in Africa in August 1998. I thought that this was the end but then he attacked the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000. Finally he organized 9/11. Now he is saying that he will attack USA again. I will not underestimate him this time. He is definitely making claims of new attacks after some preparations.
Right now he is succeeding without attacking inside the U.S. September 11 killed around 3000 people. Most of them were innocent civilians, but after 9/11 the U.S. has lost around 3000 soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan without gaining anything. I think the U.S. has lost its war against terror.UK Generals want to come back from Iraq, French Generals are looking for some excuses to come back from Afghanistan. OBL is waiting for more hatred to spread, he will be the ultimate beneficiary of the hatred because this time he wants to become a hero after an attack bigger than 9/11. He would not like to be condemned at least by Muslim masses and that is why he wants Muslims to leave the U.S. After another attack he can say that he is not responsible for the killing of Muslims in the U.S. because he warned them but they never listened.
We have to take his threats seriously and we must try to prevent another attack bigger than 9/11 because another attack inside the U.S. may destabilize the international peace. It may be the beginning of a clash between two civilizations and that is what OBL is dreaming from many years. Would you like to play in his hands?
FP: If you are speaking to me, no I don’t think we should play into Osama’s hands, and I don’t think anyone in the Bush administration wants to do that. I hear a lot of criticism here of U.S. policy in the subtext yet no real alternatives to what needs to be done. With all due respect, I am not sure what you mean when you say that “most” of the victims of 9/11 were “innocent civilians.” Who amongst the victims was not innocent if you don’t mind me asking?
I think it is a bit premature to say that the U.S. has lost its war against terror. The war is on. Two ruthless tyrannies have been overthrown. My question is: do you wish for a U.S. victory in the war on terror? Moreover, what solutions do you propose for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan? Surely you see the disaster and tragedy -- and bloodbath -- that will follow if the U.S. extricates itself overnight?
Mir: I think that all the civilians killed on 9/11 were innocent but there were some military people who lost their lives after an attack on Pentagon the same day. Their status was different from the civilians. Al Qaeda and US military have been fighting against each other from 1993. US military and Pakistani military was together in Somalia in 1993 where Al Qaeda killed more than 20 Pakistani soldiers. All the civilians who were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan by US bombing after 9/11 were also innocent but the status of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters killed by US bombings have a different status.
The problem between Osama bin Laden and the U.S. started after the first Gulf war of 1990. Osama wanted to fight against Saddam Hussein but the Saudi government invited US troops into their lands. The presence of US troops on Saudi soil provided Osama an opportunity to exploit the situation and he announced a Jihad against the U.S.
Now Saddam is arrested, so what is the use of US troops on Saudi soil? Are they promoting democracy in Saudi Arabia? No sir, they are protecting a tyrannical regime of a country where women are banned to drive even vehicles. Don't give me this lesson that US troops have liberated Iraq and Afghanistan in the last five years. They have not contained terror. They have promoted and produced more terror, more hatred and more insecurity.
US policies have provided Al Qaeda a new breeding ground in Iraq. The war against terror was started against those who masterminded the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban and Al Qaeda were on the run in 2002, but after the US invasion of Iraq in 2003,the Taliban and Al Qaeda started regrouping in Afghanistan.
Most of the Al Qaeda fighters migrated to Iraq, like Abu Masab al Zarqawi and established new training camps there. Today Al Qaeda is training hundreds of young people in Iraq and the Taliban are also back in Afghanistan. Come and visit Afghanistan with me, you will see that who is winning this war. There were no suicide attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan before 9/11, but now we see suicide attacks every day.
If the suicide attacks are increasing, if the British and Pakistani troops are trying to make peace deals with Taliban, I am not ready to believe that anybody is winning the war against terror. The world is becoming more unsafe day by day. Several days ago, two rockets with detonators were found just few hundred meters away from my office, which is very close to the President’s house in Islamabad. I was working in my office that day, when rockets were found. I felt that I am living in the most unsafe place. The boys who were arrested in the suspicion of placing rockets close to Musharraf’s office are young medical students. Who radicalised their minds? They were not graduated from religious schools; they just developed hatred out of bad U.S. policies.
The war against terror was not started against two regimes; it was started against Osama bin Ladin and Al Qaeda. Have you arrested or killed Osama? Have you wiped out Al Qaeda? Have you got any WMD's in Iraq? You have only increased the support of Al Qaeda in the Muslim world via the Abu Gharib jail in Iraq.
It’s not only the US which is fighting the war against terror. More than 37 countries have sent their troops in Afghanistan. All of them are fighting this war. I wish a victory for all of them but they cannot win this war by taking dictation from the US. They have to make policy against terrorism according to their own interests and according to the changing ground realities.
Today, Osama bin Ladin is the most popular person in Saudi Arabia. He is popular not because of his ideology but by default, because most of the Saudis don't like the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia. If US troops come back from Saudi Arabia there is no harm. Osama bin Ladin will lose a big excuse to abuse the U.S. Stop supporting tyrannical regimes and dictators in our part of the world. This is the only way of containing the growing hatred against the U.S. Promote real democracy, don't fear that Hamas-like movements will come to power through democracy; engage them in talks. Strengthen the U.N. Use U.N. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of using US and NATO forces. If the U.N. forces can take over South Lebanon from Hizbollah, then the same UN forces can be used in Iraq and Afghanistan. Use forces of Asian and African countries in Iraq and Afghanistan, instead of using western forces.
We see disaster and tragedy every day around us. It is increasing. The West and its allies have lost the so-called war on terrorism. Now they are pushing us to a clash of civilizations.
FP: The innocent civilians who have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan by U.S. bombing have died as regrettable and unintended tragedies of war. The U.S. did not and does not seek to kill innocent civilians, and it always tries its best, as do the Israelis, to keep civilian casualties and deaths as low as possible. Jihadists kill innocents intentionally. Killing innocent life is their main purpose. There is a big difference here and no moral analogy.
Yes, the U.S. liberated Iraq and Afghanistan from two vicious and sadistic fascist regimes. Unfortunately, there are totalitarian forces who do not wish democracy to be planted in those two nations. So they perpetrate terror. If the U.S. withdraws from this conflict, a bloodbath will follow and the forces of radical Islam and jihad will be emboldened everywhere. I don’t understand what is so complicated about this and why it is difficult to understand how crucial it is that the U.S. prevails in its missions in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
The point that many Muslim terrorists’ minds are radicalized by “bad” U.S. policies, in my view, is illegitimate. I’ll tell you what “radicalizes” many of those who end up perpetrating terror: freedom and liberty. Those who seek comfort in totalitarian structures hate those forces that threaten to bring individual freedom and liberty into their spheres and so they seek to destroy them. The terrorists who wage their violence are not inspired by anger toward U.S. policies; they do what they do because they are terrified of the prospect that democracy, and the freedom of conscience of every individual, and the rights of women, minorities and homosexuals, might penetrate their own cultures.
Yes, there is a great complexity in our involvement with the Saudis and with some of the regimes we are allied with the Middle East. There also exists a great danger of the devil we know being better than the devil we don’t know. Some changes might be required in the near future, especially with the Saudis, but it is unwise just to alter numerous policies overnight without the realization that more dangerous threats can emerge in the vacuum we leave behind.
Mr. Mir, your argument that U.N. forces, and Asian and African countries, should be left to do the job in Iraq and Afghanistan is, I hope, your sense of humor. The terror war has not been lost. But if we leave it to the U.N. to defeat Islamism, it will be lost for sure.
Paul Williams, any observations on Mr. Mir’s diagnosis and prescriptions for the conflict we are in?
Williams: We have regressed from a discussion of nuclear terrorism to an evaluation of the purpose and mission of the United Nations (an organization which former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu aptly labelled 'United Nothing'). This switch in discussion is tantamount to transforming a moose into a mouse. All clear thinking, as St. Thomas Aquinas taught us, comes from making distinctions between subjects. For this reason, I'll opt to say nothing with the hope that heads become cleared and intelligent discussion can proceed within the set parameters.
FP: Well thank you sir. Unfortunately we are nearing the end of our discussion.
Yes, our topic in this symposium was nuclear terrorism and I am grateful to all of you for having provided your wisdom on it.
Even if the topic of a symposium was the cause of global warming and someone started to engage in Holocaust or Gulag Denial, unfortunately I would have to stray from the topic and counter such denial.
So the same with our symposium. If someone is going to start applying moral equivalency between our side and the terrorists, I simply can’t let it go. Just like I can't overlook the diagnosis that Islamist rage at us has more to do with our policies than with a hatred of freedom. Moreover, I can’t let go unchecked a prescription (i.e. cut-and-run from Iraq) that will result in a nightmarish setback for us in this terror war and in a horrible bloodbath that will follow.
More importantly, these issues are not disconnected from our main topic today. Why we are in this war and the importance of us maintaining the course in Iraq and Afghanistan is directly connected to the danger of nuclear terror. If we cut and run, and if we confuse why and how our enemies hate us, we will facilitate the possibility of a nuclear horror being perpetrated against us.
In any case, David Dastych, your final comment please.
Dastych: Thank you, Jamie, for allowing me to add my final comments. Even, if we went a bit astray from the main topic - the nuclear terrorist threat - we have to consider the opinions and the feelings of our Muslim allies and friends, such as Mr. Hamid Mir, whom I trust and understand. He shows us that, in fact, the Muslim world developed a strong hatred of the United States and of the West in general. I think that some erroneous policies or practices of the United States (like Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo abuses, or unjustified bombing) are not the main cause of this hatred. Its principal cause is the radicalization of Islam in some countries, strongly supported by the Saudi Wahhabi religious centers and by Saudi financial contributions.
In the U.S. and in Europe, and also in Africa, most of the new mosques are built by Saudi money and run by radical clerics. This is the "landscape" for the radicalization of Muslim youths in the Western countries and beyond them. But the radical slogans, demonstrations, staged hatred rallies (like the recent anti-Benedict campaign) have not much in common with the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and with providing terrorists with these weapons. At this moment we have to make a clear distinction between some states, pursuing nuclear weaponization programs for their own sake (defense, protection, power ambitions) and these states, their governments or other organizations like some intelligence agencies, who deal with terrorists and do not hesitate to sell nuclear materials or weapons to them.
From my own experience and from what I can get from other sources, I conclude that some post-Soviet states, mainly Russia, were the main providers of small, tactical nuclear weapons and of nuclear materials to terrorist organizations, often through organized crime contacts. I cannot exclude from this group other states or organizations (like the already broken Dr. Khan's network in Pakistan, like Libya or Syria, like North Korea and Iran). Therefore, I would like to repeat my previous statement that state-terrorist links are the most dangerous element of the present nuclear threat to the United States, its military forces and institutions abroad, and to Europe and other regions of the world.
And now: what should be done to push back and stop this threat? Apart from what is already done and being done by the U.S. Government agencies and similar institutions of our allies (Britain, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Israel, Pakistan, Turkey, Poland and many other), there is a need for a multi-national, based in several countries, highly mobile and effective Special Force to intervene at any place of the globe, where a WMD (not only nuclear) threat has been identified and uncovered.
Efficient intelligence, based on technical and human means, should be used to discover and locate the WMD plots, and a mobile force should be immediately used to kill or capture the perpetrators and to seize the weapons. In addition to that, true and timely information and education should be provided to all citizens by the media, including the mainstream media. Ordinary people, living in the U.S., in Europe and other countries, can be of great help to the authorities in detecting dangerous activities. But they have to be told what to look for.
As to the wars and other operations against terrorists: the U.S., NATO and other allied military forces should stay in Iraq and in Afghanistan as long as it will be necessary to fight the terrorists and radicals. To withdraw now, without a break-through, could be a sign of weakness and an encouragement to the terrorists and radicals to continue their fight. The U.S. government should examine a possibility to withdraw its military forces from Saudi Arabia, leaving the Land of Two Holy Places to the Muslims. It could be a sign of good will.
FP: David Dastych, Harvey W. Kushner, Paul Williams, and Hamid Mir, thank you for joining Frontpage Symposium.
[Securing the United States from terrorist attack will be the focus of the upcoming America’s Truth Forum symposium, ‘Understanding the Threat of Radical Islamist Terrorism,’ taking place in Las Vegas this November 10th and 11th. Dr. Harvey Kushner, Dr. Paul Williams and Hamid Mir will be participating at this event. Go to http://www.americastruthforum.com/ for more details or contact Jeffrey Epstein at (866) 709-3474.]
***
_______________________________________________________________________________
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
George Bernard Shaw
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
George Bernard Shaw
-
Mary
- YORWW BIBLE ACADEMY GRADUATE (ALUMNI)
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 10:39 am
- Location: 2003 YORWW Bible Academy Graduate
King Of The North Is Coming!
BLAIR ACCUSES IRAN OF WHIPPING UP TROUBLE
Tuesday February 6, 03:16 PM
Source of Article
LONDON (Reuters) - Prime Minister Tony Blair accused Iran on Tuesday of trying to whip up the "maximum trouble" possible but said no one was contemplating military action against Tehran.
Blair accused Iran of developing nuclear weapons capability in defiance of the United Nations and of "deliberately fomenting sectarianism and conflict" in the region.
But he also held out an olive branch by saying "a whole series of doors" would open for Iran if it changed strategy."Their strategy is to create the maximum trouble for us and for the region and I think it's a miscalculation because in the end they're going to find that they assemble a very large coalition against them," Blair said, citing Iranian influence on Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine and elements of the Shi'ite militias in Iraq.
"Nobody is talking about military intervention in respect of Iran, but people are increasingly alarmed and concerned at the strategy they appear to be pursuing," he told a parliamentary committee.
Blair, however, quoted Bush's phrase that "you can't take any option off the table".
Iran on Tuesday blamed the U.S. military for the kidnapping of a senior Iranian diplomat in Baghdad by gunmen in Iraqi army uniforms.
The Bush administration has stepped up its rhetoric against Iran in recent weeks, prompting speculation it could be laying the groundwork for a military attack.
Washington is at loggerheads with Iran over its nuclear programme and accuses Tehran of funding and training militants fighting U.S. forces in Iraq.
U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates said last week that Washington was not planning for war with Iran.
NOT PLANNING FOR WAR
Iran says its nuclear enrichment programme is aimed solely at electricity generation -- not at making nuclear weapons, as the West alleges -- and denies involvement in violence in Iraq.
Blair urged Iran to back a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a resolution in Lebanon and peace in Iraq.
"If they started offering some sign that they were prepared to deal differently with things, I think they would find that a whole series of doors would open up to them but at the moment they are not prepared to do that," he said, giving no details.
Blair slammed as "ridiculous" the belief Britain had fuelled Muslim extremism by sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq.
Muslim groups and politicians have urged Blair to change his foreign policy while left-leaning think-tank Demos said in December that his government's actions bred resentment among British Muslims, causing some to sympathise with extremists.
Four Britons killed 52 people on London's transport network in July 2005 in Western Europe's first Islamist suicide bombings.
Blair said he did not think his government was losing the battle for hearts and minds over Iraq, but he did not believe it would win the battle "until we stop pandering ... to a view of our foreign policy that I regard ... as ridiculous."
"The people that are killing innocent Muslims in Iraq and in Afghanistan are these Muslim extremists," he said.
***
Tuesday February 6, 03:16 PM
Source of Article
LONDON (Reuters) - Prime Minister Tony Blair accused Iran on Tuesday of trying to whip up the "maximum trouble" possible but said no one was contemplating military action against Tehran.
Blair accused Iran of developing nuclear weapons capability in defiance of the United Nations and of "deliberately fomenting sectarianism and conflict" in the region.
But he also held out an olive branch by saying "a whole series of doors" would open for Iran if it changed strategy."Their strategy is to create the maximum trouble for us and for the region and I think it's a miscalculation because in the end they're going to find that they assemble a very large coalition against them," Blair said, citing Iranian influence on Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine and elements of the Shi'ite militias in Iraq.
"Nobody is talking about military intervention in respect of Iran, but people are increasingly alarmed and concerned at the strategy they appear to be pursuing," he told a parliamentary committee.
Blair, however, quoted Bush's phrase that "you can't take any option off the table".
Iran on Tuesday blamed the U.S. military for the kidnapping of a senior Iranian diplomat in Baghdad by gunmen in Iraqi army uniforms.
The Bush administration has stepped up its rhetoric against Iran in recent weeks, prompting speculation it could be laying the groundwork for a military attack.
Washington is at loggerheads with Iran over its nuclear programme and accuses Tehran of funding and training militants fighting U.S. forces in Iraq.
U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates said last week that Washington was not planning for war with Iran.
NOT PLANNING FOR WAR
Iran says its nuclear enrichment programme is aimed solely at electricity generation -- not at making nuclear weapons, as the West alleges -- and denies involvement in violence in Iraq.
Blair urged Iran to back a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a resolution in Lebanon and peace in Iraq.
"If they started offering some sign that they were prepared to deal differently with things, I think they would find that a whole series of doors would open up to them but at the moment they are not prepared to do that," he said, giving no details.
Blair slammed as "ridiculous" the belief Britain had fuelled Muslim extremism by sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq.
Muslim groups and politicians have urged Blair to change his foreign policy while left-leaning think-tank Demos said in December that his government's actions bred resentment among British Muslims, causing some to sympathise with extremists.
Four Britons killed 52 people on London's transport network in July 2005 in Western Europe's first Islamist suicide bombings.
Blair said he did not think his government was losing the battle for hearts and minds over Iraq, but he did not believe it would win the battle "until we stop pandering ... to a view of our foreign policy that I regard ... as ridiculous."
"The people that are killing innocent Muslims in Iraq and in Afghanistan are these Muslim extremists," he said.
***
_______________________________________________________________________________
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
George Bernard Shaw
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
George Bernard Shaw
-
Mary
- YORWW BIBLE ACADEMY GRADUATE (ALUMNI)
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 10:39 am
- Location: 2003 YORWW Bible Academy Graduate
King Of The North Is Coming!
TEHRAN WARNS US AGAINST ATTACKS
BBC News
Thursday, 8 February 2007, 17:44 GMT
Source of Article
Iran will strike against US interests worldwide if it is attacked, the country's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has warned.
"The enemies know well that any aggression will lead to a reaction from all sides," he said.
Washington accuses Tehran of secretly trying to develop a nuclear weapon, and has not ruled out using military force.
The Iranians insist their nuclear programme is purely civilian and aimed at meeting their energy needs.
The BBC's Frances Harrison in Tehran says Ayatollah Khamenei was defiant about the prospect of a possible American military strike.
The supreme leader said he hoped nobody would risk attacking Iran because the nation would stand up for itself and only become stronger militarily and economically.
Iran also denounced remarks by UK Prime Minister Tony Blair that Tehran was determined to stir up maximum trouble in the Middle East.
Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Mohammed Ali Hosseini said Mr Blair's comments were "insolent" and "undiplomatic".
Mr Hosseini said Britain had played a key role in sabotaging talks on the nuclear issue in the past and had followed the US and Israel in imposing destructive wars on the Middle East.
War games
Another key Iranian figure, ex-President Hashemi Rafsanjani, has also warned against a strike, saying it would carry a heavy cost for those who tried it.
The warnings came as Iran's navy and air force conducted war games.
Iran said it had successfully test-fired a land-to-sea missile with a range of 350km (220 miles).
Tehran said it had also tested a new Russian-made air defence system.
Officials have refused to confirm whether the system has been deployed around nuclear sites.
At the weekend ambassadors from non-aligned countries were allowed to visit an Iranian nuclear facility, on what was billed as a transparency visit.
The UN's chief nuclear inspector is to report on Tehran's compliance with the UN Security Council's demands later this month.
In December the UN imposed limited sanctions on Iran for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment.
***
BBC News
Thursday, 8 February 2007, 17:44 GMT
Source of Article
Iran will strike against US interests worldwide if it is attacked, the country's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has warned.
"The enemies know well that any aggression will lead to a reaction from all sides," he said.
Washington accuses Tehran of secretly trying to develop a nuclear weapon, and has not ruled out using military force.
The Iranians insist their nuclear programme is purely civilian and aimed at meeting their energy needs.
The BBC's Frances Harrison in Tehran says Ayatollah Khamenei was defiant about the prospect of a possible American military strike.
The supreme leader said he hoped nobody would risk attacking Iran because the nation would stand up for itself and only become stronger militarily and economically.
Iran also denounced remarks by UK Prime Minister Tony Blair that Tehran was determined to stir up maximum trouble in the Middle East.
Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Mohammed Ali Hosseini said Mr Blair's comments were "insolent" and "undiplomatic".
Mr Hosseini said Britain had played a key role in sabotaging talks on the nuclear issue in the past and had followed the US and Israel in imposing destructive wars on the Middle East.
War games
Another key Iranian figure, ex-President Hashemi Rafsanjani, has also warned against a strike, saying it would carry a heavy cost for those who tried it.
The warnings came as Iran's navy and air force conducted war games.
Iran said it had successfully test-fired a land-to-sea missile with a range of 350km (220 miles).
Tehran said it had also tested a new Russian-made air defence system.
Officials have refused to confirm whether the system has been deployed around nuclear sites.
At the weekend ambassadors from non-aligned countries were allowed to visit an Iranian nuclear facility, on what was billed as a transparency visit.
The UN's chief nuclear inspector is to report on Tehran's compliance with the UN Security Council's demands later this month.
In December the UN imposed limited sanctions on Iran for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment.
***
_______________________________________________________________________________
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
George Bernard Shaw
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
George Bernard Shaw