www.nettime.org
Nettime mailing list archives

Fwd: Re: [Nettime-nl] Terrorism with weapons of mass destruction
Eric Duivenvoorden on Tue, 18 Sep 2001 08:58:43 +0200 (CEST)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Fwd: Re: [Nettime-nl] Terrorism with weapons of mass destruction



Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 01:40:19 +0200
To: nettime-nl {AT} nettime.org
From: Eric Duivenvoorden <eduiv {AT} dds.nl>
Subject: Re: [Nettime-nl] Terrorism with weapons of mass destruction

Omdraaiing stelling

Felipe Rodriguez stelt in zijn artikel dat wraak en vergelding niet de goede weg is, maar betekent dat dan dat er maar helemaal niets gedaan moet worden in repressieve zin, omdat we anders de heren terroristen voor het hoofd stoten of uitdagen en ze ons bestoken met massavernietigingswapens?

Denk je dat de heren er genoegen mee nemen als het Westen niets onderneemt en alleen uithuilt en opnieuw begint? Niemand weet met zekerheid wat de motieven zijn die aan de aanslagen ten grondslag liggen. Er zijn ook geen eisen of verklaringen van de daders, dus het is volstrekt onduidelijk wat het Westen kan doen om aanslagen in de toekomst te voorkomen. Wie beweert dat het Westen eerst de wereld vrijer en rechtvaardiger moet maken om de toorn in te tomen en aanslagen te vermijden, speculeert net zo goed als degene die hetzelfde resultaat verwacht door Bin Laden van de aardbodem weg te vagen.

Denk niet dat ze vanuit hun uitvalsbases in de vermeende tentenkampen in het Midden-Oosten onderscheid maken tussen kapitalisten en goedbedoelende wereldverbeteraars. Hun religieus gefundeerde weerzin van alles wat Westers is, staat zo'n onderscheid niet toe.

Wanneer er inderdaad massavernietigingswapens in het spel zijn dan is het zwartste scenario dat het niet uitmaakt of er nu directe vergelding van het Westen plaatsvindt of niet. Ze zullen hoe dan ook doorgaan om het Westen uit hun blikveld te bannen en nog erger.

Ik zou daarom de stelling van Felipe willen omdraaien. Juist als er bewezen wordt dat er 'aan de andere kant' massavernietigingswapens in het spel zijn dan dienen we ons voor te bereiden op een oorlog en moeten we inderdaad de prijs betalen die daar bijhoort. Net zoals het in 1939 ook niet veel zin had om nog langer stil te staan bij de motieven van A. Hitler en zijn achterban.
In een uiterste poging om het terroristennetwerk op te sporen kan dan voorkomen worden dat de massavernietigingswapens tegen het Westen worden ingezet. 

Wanneer je, zoals Felipe voorstelt, niets in repressieve zin onderneemt, dan is het wachten op de volgende aanslagen die dan misschien een groter aantal mensen zal treffen dan nu het geval is  

Maar laten we ons niet te veel meeslepen. Voorlopig is dat gelukkig nog niet aan de orde. Of wordt het bezit van die wapens angstvallig voor het grote publiek verborgen gehouden om paniek te voorkomen?

Pas als definitief vastgesteld is dat massavernietigingswapens niet 'aan de andere kant' voorhanden zijn dan is een terughoudende opstelling van het Westen de beste remedie om het gevaar in te tomen. Alles zou er dan op gericht moeten zijn om te voorkomen dat zulke wapens in handen zouden kunnen vallen van kwaadwillenden om ondertussen wat te doen aan de omstandigheden die ten grondslag liggen aan de huidige misere, zo we die uberhaupt op zouden kunnen sporen, want wellicht zijn we dat station allang gepasseerd.

Al met al blijft het een zeer verontrustende gedachte als het klopt dat er inderdaad massavernietigingswapens in handen zijn gevallen van dezelfde lieden die in de VS aan de gang zijn geweest. In de koude oorlog was er nog sprake van een wederzijdse afschrikking die voorkwam dat men elkaar met kernwapens bestookte. Het gebruik van kernwapens betekende toen nog de totale waanzin. In deze nieuwe omstandigheden ligt dat totaal anders. Het moge immers duidelijk zijn dat deze lieden voor niets terugdeinzen en zich met een glimlach naar een andere wereld willen laten bombarderen. 




At 22:44 17-9-2001 +1000, you wrote:
TERRORISM WITH WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

(c) Felipe Rodriquez
17 September 2001



SUMMARY

The terrorist network around Osama Bin Laden has been trying to acquire
nuclear weapons and nuclear materials since about 1993. There are various
reports that he has succeeded in obtaining nuclear weapons and material. Any
form of retaliation against Bin Laden and his network should take this
information into account. It is possible that the WTC bombing was a trap,
with the intention to provoke the United States and NATO into retaliation.
Retaliation could be a trigger that provokes terrorist attacks with nuclear,
chemical and biological weapons.


TERRORISM & WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

In May 1998 US congressman Curt Weldon met with General Alexander Lebed,
former Secretary of the National Security Council in Russia (1). In that
meeting Lebed mentioned that the Soviet Union had manufactured 132 suitcase
nuclear explosive devices, and could locate only 48 of them. These devices
have an explosive charge of about 1 kiloton. They where allegedly created
for the KGB, to be used around the world in the event of a conflict with
Russia. A 1 kiloton nuclear device has a blast radius of about 500 meters,
and is capable of destroying part of a city center, or any landmark
building. Lebed said one person could detonate such a bomb by himself.

In an article in the Jerusalem Report(2) in 1999 Yossef Bodansky says that
Bin Laden has acquired portable nuclear devices. Bodansky reports that Bin
Laden’s associates acquired the devices through Chechnya, paying the
Chechens $30 million in cash and two tons of Afghan heroin. Bodanksy is
Director of the US House of Representatives Task Force on Terrorism and
Unconventional Warfare, Senior Editor of Defense & Foreign Affairs
publications and director of The International Strategic Studies Association
(3).

Israeli military intelligence sources reported that Bin Laden paid over 2
million pounds sterling to a middle-man in Kazakhstan, who promised to
deliver a “suitcase” nuclear bomb to Bin Laden within two years. (4)

The Arabic news magazine Al-Watan Al-Arabi reported that Usama Bin Laden was
engaged in a comprehensive plan to acquire nuclear weapons.(5) In 1993, Bin
Laden instructed some of his aides to obtain weapons-grade uranium that
could be used to develop small nuclear weapons.(6)

Bin Laden wrote a document that was titled the endorsement of the nuclear
bomb of Islam, in it he says that a nuclear bomb is needed to terrorize the
enemies of God, and that it is the duty of the Muslims to prepare as much
force possible to terrorize the enemies of God (7). This document was found
in the residence of Khalid al Fawwaz. A US indictment against Fawwazz
charges that he acted, together with others of the Al Qaeda group, in a
conspiracy to murder United States nationals.

Jamal Ahmad al-Fadl is a Sudanese national and the star witness for the
prosecution in the United states v. Bin Laden trial in the US. Al-Fadl
alleged that Bin Laden and his associates sent him to Sudan to buy uranium
from Sudanese black marketeers in 1994/95.(8) Bin Laden’s aide Mamdouh
Mahmud Salim reportedly attempted to obtain highly enriched uranium in the
mid-1990s.(9)

Even if terrorists did not acquire nuclear explosive devices, they could
build a so-called 'dirty bomb', a conventional weapon that would shower
lethal radioactive material over a wide area. There is a long history of
nuclear smuggling incidents, most of these involve Russian radioactive
material. A former greenpeace President said in 1995 that the organization
had been offered a 800 kg nuclear Scud warhead by a former Soviet officer in
1991 (10).

There are also reports available that suggest that Bin Laden has obtained,
or is trying to obtain, chemical and biological weapons.

In an interview with Frontline Samuel R. Berger, former U.S. National
Security Advisor, says that the US has information that Bin Laden sought to
attain chemical weapons, and that he wanted to use those chemical weapons
against the United States (11). On March 4 2000 APBnews.com ran an article
that said that bin Laden's trainees learn to use chemical weapons, and that
there where chemical engineers present.

Manufacturing chemical weapons is not rocket science. One can obtain the
relevant information from open literature, acquire the necessary chemicals,
and prepare the agent. Formulas for manufacturing nerve agents, mustard gas,
LSD, and herbicides are readily available in various scientific texts. (12)

In July 1999 the Pentagon considered a suspension of public tours because of
heightened concerns of a possible terrorist attack with biological weapons
by the followers of Osama bin Laden (13). Biological weapons are any
infectious agent such as a bacteria or virus when used intentionally to
inflict harm upon others. Biological weapons are immensely destructive. For
example, botulinum toxin has been described as 3 million times more potent
than the chemical nerve agent sarin. (14)


CONCLUSION

Current US policy to counter international terrorism rests on the following
principles; make no concessions with terrorists and make no deals, bring
terrorists to justice for their crimes, isolate and apply pressure on states
that sponsor terrorism and force them to change their behavior, and bolster
the counter terrorist capabilities of those countries that work with the US
and require assistance (15). This is official US defense doctrine, and it is
exactly how the US has reacted to the WTC attack in New York. The question
is if this doctrine is still valid today, when dealing with terrorist
organizations that have access to weapons of mass destruction.

A terrorist attack such as the WTC bombing takes a long time to prepare. The
flight training of the terrorists itself takes months. It is unlikely that
the attack on the WTC is a standalone activity. A hint in this direction is
the assassination of the leader of Afghanistan's opposition to the ruling
Taleban, Ahmed Shah Massoud two days before the attack in New York.
Massoud's Northern Alliance, the anti-Taliban alliance in northern
Afghanistan, was the only potential US ally in a confrontation with the
Taleban.

The WTC attack could well be part of a larger strategy with the aim of
provoking the US and NATO into a full scale offensive. Such an offensive
could give cause for further retaliation in the form of terrorist attacks
with weapons of mass destruction. There are many indications that groups
affiliated with Osama Bin Laden have obtained weapons of mass destruction.

Because article 5 of the NATO alliance was invoked, the WTC attack is
considered to be an attack on all NATO members. Once a military campaign
against Bin Laden and other terrorist organizations gets going, NATO members
should be aware that they become targets for terrorist attacks, possibly
with weapons of mass destruction. Europe is in many ways a more open society
than the US, and its intelligence capabilities are much less developed than
those in the US. Europe is therefore more vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
Retaliation of the WTC bombing could have catastrophic consequences for the
US and all NATO members, because the US and NATO are vulnerable societies;
they have a lot to lose, whereas the terrorist organizations have nothing to
lose.

The rules of military engagement have changed. The US and NATO are not
fighting a well known enemy, that can be defined in terms of infrastructure,
its leaders and its military capabilities. The NATO military apparatus and
doctrine is not adequate to fight an enemy that is global and dispersed, and
that has access to a large pool of funds, human bombs, and weapons of mass
destruction. Military retaliation will not achieve results, but will provoke
a counter reaction.

Taking the well organized attack on the WTC and the African embassies as
example, and considering the fact that these groups have obtained weapons of
mass destruction, a horrible scenario comes to mind. Every attack that was
credited to the Al Qaeda network was bigger than the last, and some of these
attacks involved multiple targets that where hit simultaneously. A doomsday
scenario would be an attack on multiple city center targets, with nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons. Such an attack would be devastating enough
to destroy the economic and cultural infrastructure of Europe and the US. It
would destroy the foundations of the society that we live in and treasure.
Retaliation is a mistake, because it could trigger this destruction.




-

SOURCES:

(1) Report of meeting between Lebed and Curt Weldon
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/russia/suitcase/comments.html

(2) Jerusalem Report: October 25th, 1999
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/isreport/septoct99/binladen.html

(3) Background of the International Strategic Studies Association
http://www.strategicstudies.org/background.htm#Start

(4) Marie Colvin, “Holy War with US in his Sights,” Times, August 16, 1998.

(5) Report Links Bin-Laden, Nuclear Weapons,” Al-Watan Al-Arabi November 13,
1998

(6) WMD TERRORISM AND USAMA BIN LADEN
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/binladen.htm

(7)UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. USAMA BIN LADEN, et al
court transcript of Day 38 of the trial, May 2, 2001.
http://cryptome.hackerdojo.com/usa-v-ubl-38.htm

(8)UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. USAMA BIN LADEN, et al
court transcript of Day 3 of the trial, February 7, 2001
http://cryptome.hackerdojo.com/usa-v-ubl-03.htm

(9) Benjamin Weiser, “U.S. Says Bin Laden Aide Tried to Get Nuclear
 Weapons,” New York Times, September 26, 1998.

(10) CHRONOLOGY OF NUCLEAR SMUGGLING INCIDENTS
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1996_hr/s960320c.htm

(11) Interview with Samuel R. Berger
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/interviews/berger.htm
l

(12) CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL TERRORISM: THE THREAT ACCORDING TO THE OPEN
LITERATURE
http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/eng/miscdocs/chemter_e.html

(13) CNN: Pentagon may cancel public tours amid fears of germ warfare
http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/27/pentagon.terror/

(14) Texas Department of Health; Bioterrorism FAQ
http://www.tdh.state.tx.us/bioterrorism/faqs.htm

(15) US Office of the secretary of defence publication
Proliferation: threat and response, januari 2001, page 61
http://www.defencelink.mil



(C) Felipe Rodriquez

Copryright Notice; You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of this
article for non-commercial use without permission from the author.
Distribution to policy makers is encouraged.