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

[Eric Duivenvoorden <eduiv@dds.nl>]

> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 01:40:19
> +0200
> To: nettime-nl@nettime.org
> From: Eric Duivenvoorden <eduiv@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.