Friday, September 30, 2005

Australia's Islamaware Index Is Way Above America's

Australia's Prime Minister Howard, with relatively ease, passed through additional antiterrorism laws this month. The government's politicians were largely behind the proposals across parties. There have been blunt statements about Islam, Sharia and the ideal of a 'caliphate' from Australia's leaders. It has really been a breath of fresh air. In tomorrow's Weekend edition of the Australian, there is this really frank discussion of WMDs and the jihad against the West. It is so frank in comparison to the mush we receive in the US in the MSM. Also, it is at the 'adult level' rather than the 'what should we tell the children' attitude of our government. Australia is truly a democracy that has not yet been consumed by political correctness and multiculturalism. Greg Sheridan is someone to watch in the MSM of Australia.

Nuclear option escalates jihad threat GREG SHERIDAN

October 01, 2005
IN the past 12 months, influential Islamist jihadist websites have carried an increased discussion on the ethics and strategy of using weapons of mass destruction as part of the global terror campaign. In the week when state and federal governments in Australia have announced tougher rules to monitor and restrict possible and suspected terrorists, we have to take this discussion very seriously.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Pastorius said...

I've been reading about WWII lately. The United States became a superpower because of that war. While we were certainly a huge force to be reckoned with prior to the war, it was WWII which allowed us to eclipse France, Germany, and England. This is primarily because we had our eyes on the prize the whole time. And what was the prize? Victory and freedom for the people of the world.

On the other hand, England and France were largely, or even primarily concerned with their standing in the world, and with maintaining their empires.

In the current war, the United States seems to be concerned, in many ways, with keeping up an appearence of "tolerance." This concern with appearences seems to eclipse our desire for victory and freedom much of the time.

Being that the lesson of WWII is that keeping ones eyes on the prize result in increased power, we can surmise that Australia may end up eclipsing America in power in the aftermath of this war.

It would not surprise me.

Pastorius said...

Oh, and by the way, Axis-type guy, I understand your frustration with Condi, but I don't share your passion. I wonder what you have to say about her speech at Princeton the other night, where she took a very hard line. Iowahawk reported this:

"Secretary Rice also took questions from the audience, which are not likely to show up in any transcript. Of these, two stood out. The first questioner challenged her on the apparently softer line that the United States was taking toward Hamas, and wondered whether that was not inconsistent with the ideals Rice had expressed in this speech. She responded by emphasizing that the United States has been "very clear" that Hamas remains a terrorist group that must disband. However, this may be a time to give the Palestinians the "political space" to achieve that result on their own. That having been said, Hamas stands for a "one-state solution," which means that there can never be peace in the region as long as Hamas remains armed."

It would seem that Condi is not nearly as weak as the media portrays her to be. I have to wonder if maybe the reason the media reports her thusly is because they wish her to be an appeaser.

As we navigate through the years of this war, we must remember that we navigate a hall of mirrors. We get varying views depending upon where we look. Somehow, we have to maintain a balance within ourselves. And that includes the judegements we make about the people whom we will trust.

Condoleeza Rice and George Bush seem to be focused human beings. I trust them. When they appear to go down roads that I would not take, I think to myself, maybe there is a strategy behind that move, or maybe the media has lied about their move in the first place.

I wonder why you do not do that. Maybe you can enlighten me.

I put the question to you, because I respect your viewpoint. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother.

cathikins said...

I live in Melbourne and unfortunately whilst there are some columnists prepared to speak out, political correctness reigns supreme here. I watch Fox via Satellite and find it refreshing to hear more frankness there than the ever present accusation of racism whenever muslims are criticised here (we all know they are not a race) So it's sad that questions that need to be asked and answered are still off limits

Anonymous said...

^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^

徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,

徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦

Anonymous said...

^^ nice blog!! ^@^

徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇

徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社