The Dangers of “Fisking” – AND – Nuking America

by

North Korea ready to sell nukes to Al Qaeda

Comment at end

28th May, 2009

Could it be that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were right in deciding to invade Iraq?

… asked Sheldon Filger recently at The Huffington Post. But no-one noticed. So, what has this to do with Robert Fisk? Only that there is an alternative view from that of the ‘missionary’ Fisk. And such an alternative is NOT (as Fisk would infer) only held by evil people. You wouldn’t know it if you swallowed Robert Fisk’s analysis whole.

robertfisk

Robert Fisk – journalist on a mission to discredit the west

TOM GROSS: For those of you who are not familiar with Fisk, he is in a class of his own among European journalists when it comes to his hatred of America and Israel.

Don’t ask Fisk if America under Bush was ever right on anything. Not in recent years anyway. With him and his ilk there are no shades of grey in political decision-making, only certainties.  And HIS certainty is that the west is THE BIG BAD GUY.

Every time I read his ‘thoughts’, as with the thoughts of another beligerent west-hater John Pilger, I want to get onto the streets with a placard – “YOU DON’T SAY? NOT IN MY NAME, YOU DON’T!”

On 13th May, Sheldon Filger posed this thought at The Huffington Post: “Will Al Qaeda Nuke America”

‘If Al-Qaeda is planning a future attack on America that will exceed 9/11 in its impact, there is a high probability that this operation would involve the detonation of a nuclear weapon in a major urban center within the continental United States. The capacity for even a crude nuclear weapon to inflict vast carnage and destruction within a densely populated city is unmatched by any other weapon or scenario that Al-Qaeda could conceivably employ. Captured documents and other anecdotal information point to a very high level of longstanding interest by Osama bin Laden in nuclear weapons.’

Read rest from Filger here

For a site set up to “balance such sites as The Drudge Report” this was either very liberal of the Huffington Post or perhaps a sign that they are catching up with real life. Having said that, their commenters aren’t. Not one has seen fit to comment at all since Filger’s article was posted. This at a site which will show hundreds of moaners about the west’s policies, George Bush, the so-called “so-called war-on-terror”.

Why so dumbstruck?

Mainly because the Left is firmly in the grip of the “it’s all our fault” and the “we’re not listening to your scare-mongering any more” mindset.


BACK TO FISK AND HIS FRIEND OSAMA

In an interview conducted with the journalist Robert Fisk in 1997, Osama bin-Laden made his ultimate objective regarding the United States unambiguously clear. “I pray to God that He permits us to turn America into a shadow of itself,” the Al-Qaeda leader told Fisk.

Well, it evidently didn’t persuade Fisk that America/Clinton/Bush/Blair were on our side, did it? Robert Fisk, imho, is one of the most shameful anti-western journalists to be read anywhere.

Do a search for Fisk’s interview with Osama bin-Laden 1997. I have found this one – 1993 – they actually met three times. Here in a 2001 interview after the Afghanistan invasion, but before Iraq.

Dec 2005 – BBC report on Fisk. It isn’t hard to see why so many empathise with his sympathy/empathy with the victims of war. Sadly, that is only part of the picture.

Tom Gross seems to agree with me on this. Scroll down a little at his site to read it all here:

BIN LADEN SINGLES OUT FISK FOR PRAISE

The full transcript of Osama Bin Laden’s pre-U.S. election speech has now been released by the Al Jazeera TV network, and can be read in full in English at:  http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=7403

And just below that, two articles on Fisk including this:

Nov. 2003: The Dangers of Fisking

For those of you who are not familiar with Fisk, he is in a class of his own among European journalists when it comes to his hatred of America and Israel.In the www arena where the world speaks invisibly to itself, a new word has appeared: ‘fisking’, meaning the selection of evidence solely in order to bolster preconceptions and prejudices. Just as cardigans or mackintoshes are named after an inventive individual, so fisking derives from the work of Robert Fisk, the Middle East correspondent of the Independent, stationed these many years in Beirut.

The preconceptions and prejudices that are immortalising Fisk in the English language express an unqualified contempt for America. For him, most Americans are ignorant and arrogant, and their leaders mendacious and cynical power maniacs leading everyone to perdition. Everything wrong with the Middle East is particularly their fault. About a dozen times over the past year Fisk has written that in 1983 Donald Rumsfeld met Saddam Hussein, and this is enough to make the United States responsible for Saddam’s crimes. The corpses in the mass graves of Iraq are the result of ‘American encouragement of Saddam and treachery’. Supporting the military regime in Algeria, in another instance of their perfidy, the Americans must also be responsible for the 100,000 or more murdered there in the civil war.

Most unforgivably, they are also friends of Israel. Fisk has fits at the very idea of that. All administrations in Washington are bad, but, in the first place, President Bush and his men belong to the ‘failed lunatic Right’ and in the second place they have fallen into the hands of the Jews. Advisers such as Kenneth Adelman ‘have not vouchsafed their own religion’, but together with ‘the Perles and the Wolfowitzes and the Cohens’ they are ‘very sinister people hovering around Bush’. The whole lot of them drive what Fisk calls ‘the American-Israeli war’. For fear that their own soldiers will be arrested for what they do in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States shuns the International Criminal Court. By my count, in the course of the past year Fisk has called Ariel Sharon a war criminal in no fewer than seven articles. In about 15 articles over the past year, he further assures us that the Iraq war is really all about oil. How that squares with American-Israeli conspiracy is not clear.

Fellow leftists by the million paddle about in this swamp of unreason. What makes Fisk conspicuous is his self-righteousness. The content and style of his writing proclaim that in his own eyes he is not really a reporter but the repository of truth. Other journalists are not up to their task; they are ‘nasty little puffed-up fantasy colonels’, warmongering collaborators of the wicked American-Israelis. He alone has the calling and the courage to reveal the evil rampant everywhere. Woe, woe, saith the preacher. Fisking is evangelical missionary work.

SHELDON


Sheldon:  Will Al Qaeda Nuke America?

It has been nearly eight years since Al-Qaeda struck the United States on September 11, 2001. In the aftermath of that transformational event, some have speculated that a future strike on the U.S. by Osama bin Laden would be more devastating, involving perhaps a nuclear weapon. This apocalyptic scenario has been the plot of various novels, including my own nuclear terrorism thriller, “King of Bombs” (information at http://www.kingofbombs.com). However, the passage of nearly a decade has lulled some into a state of complacency. Could it be that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were right in deciding to invade Iraq? After all, it was their rationale (after no weapons of mass destruction were found) that fighting in Iraq meant the United States did not have to fight Al-Qaeda in the homeland. Could that be why Al-Qaeda has not launched a second attack on the homeland, after eight years?

In evaluating the possibility of future Al-Qaeda operations in the United States, it is useful to look back at an earlier plot that predated 9/11. On February 26, 1993 an Islamist radical cell linked to what would eventually be known as Al-Qaeda detonated 1,500 pounds of explosive material, consisting of oil and nitrates, in the underground parking garage at the World Trade Center. The resulting explosion killed six and injured more than 1,000. As destructive as this attack was, it did not fulfill the tactical and strategic objectives of the perpetrators.

The intention of the attackers was to bring down one of the Twin Towers in such as manner that it would topple over its twin, resulting in mass casualties and destruction. However, many mistakes were made by the plotters, ensuring that the detonation would not bring about the collapse of the building, while leaving a trail of forensic clues which would lead to the eventual apprehension of most of the plotters of the attack.

It would be more than eight years before Al-Qaeda struck again, with vastly more devastating results. Until 9/11, there was a level of complacency that inhibited American policymakers from correctly evaluating the threat of a jihadist cell striking at the American homeland, despite repeated and successful Al-Qaeda attacks directed at American targets overseas. This intellectual myopia on the part of U.S. decision-makers would be described in the official report of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission as a “failure of imagination.” Could history be repeating itself?

The American government, during the Clinton and subsequent Bush administrations, failed to recognize that Al-Qaeda was a transnational terrorist organization unlike any other. Furthermore, policymakers ignored clear threats by the leadership of Al-Qaeda to attack the American homeland. Several of these warning were issued personally by Osama bin-Laden to international journalists.

Since 9/11, Al-Qaeda has launched dozens of attacks throughout the world. This figure does not include Iraq and Afghanistan, where the number certainly runs into the hundreds, if not thousands. The jihadist followers of Osama bin-Laden have struck targets in diverse regions including Europe, North and East Africa, Turkey, the Philippines and Indonesia. On October 12, 2002 a jihadist group linked to Al-Qaeda attacked three targets on the Indonesian Island of Bali, including a bar frequented by European and Australian tourists, killing more than 200. On March 11, 2004 Al-Qaeda set off multiple bombs on Spanish trains in Madrid, killing nearly 200. On July 7, 2005 Al-Qaeda operatives trained in Pakistan detonated bombs that struck London’s transit system, resulting in 52 fatalities and hundreds of injuries. These are but a few of a long list of murderous terrorist operations successfully carried out by Al-Qaeda since 9/11.

Based solely on operational tempo, Al-Qaeda’s capability to mount attacks worldwide appears intact. There are indications that it may even have grown substantially. Experts who monitor Al-Qaeda believe two factors have contributed to the enhancement of this terrorist organization’s capacity. In the first place, Al-Qaeda has developed a sophisticated capability to utilize the Internet as a recruitment tool as well as an operational asset. Thousands of jihadist websites spread the message of Osama bin-Laden’s Islamist ideology to a large segment of disaffected Muslims, especially among immigrants in Europe. Secondly, the Iraq war is believed by many to have energized Al-Qaeda, and attracted support and sympathy throughout the Islamic world.

Some defenders of the Bush administration’s decision to invade and occupy Iraq maintain that the war has made America safer, by attracting jihadists who would otherwise come to America to wage warfare. However, in testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in 2005, then CIA Director Porter J. Goss stated that, “these jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced and focused on acts of urban terrorism. They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups and networks.”

In 2007 the National Intelligence Estimate, reflecting the consensus view of America’s intelligence gathering agencies, concluded that Al-Qaeda had reconstituted its command and control infrastructure in sanctuary areas inside Pakistan, astride the border with Afghanistan. Ominously, the NIE concluded that:

“We assess that Al-Qaeda’s homeland plotting is likely to continue to focus on prominent political, economic, and infrastructure targets with the goal of producing mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks, and/or fear among the U.S. population. The group is proficient with conventional small arms and improvised explosive devices, and is innovative in creating new capabilities and overcoming security obstacles. We assess that Al-Qaeda will continue to try to acquire and employ chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear material in attacks and would not hesitate to use them if it develops what it deems is sufficient capability.”

Looking back at the 8-year interval between the attacks on the World Trade Center and the subsequent eight years, we observe a number of key characteristics about Al-Qaeda and its leadership. Osama bin-Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, are utterly committed to the victory of their interpretation of Islam, which means the reestablishment of a united Islamic caliphate ruled under strict shariah law. An essential preliminary to achieving this historic triumph, in their view, is the expulsion of all “infidel” influence within the Islamic world, meaning principally the United States, and the emasculation of America’s economic power. While this goal seems preposterous to an American mind, within the context of Islamist radicalism Osama bin-Laden has articulated a rational and cogent strategy for achieving his aims.

Al-Qaeda and its senior leadership think in terms of a long timeframe for achieving their goals. Patience characterizes their operational planning, particularly involving major targets. Thus, in their mode of thinking, eight years was a reasonable period of time to improve upon their first attack on the World Trade Center mounted in 1993.

The 9/11 attack displayed ruthless execution and bold planning. It also established a benchmark for future attacks on America, with a far higher threshold of destruction required then what Al-Qaeda customarily inflicts during its attacks in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and Indonesia. Anytime since 9/11, Al-Qaeda could have attacked transit systems, shopping malls and other “soft targets” in the United States. However, such terrorist incidents would be purely tactical, lacking any strategic consequences. Al-Qaeda has probably determined that any future attack on America, to be viewed as successful and strategic, must exceed the level of carnage inflicted on 9/11 by a significant degree. That is probably why the National Intelligence Estimate released in 2007 emphasized the likelihood that Al-Qaeda is planning to hit the American homeland again, possibly with a weapon of mass destruction.

When Osama bin-Laden attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon on 9/11, he had a strategic objective clearly in mind. Mass casualties were the means to his goal, rather then the ends. By inflicting a shock on the American psyche of such dramatic proportions, he sought to induce the United States to militarily intervene in Afghanistan, repeating the experience of the former Soviet Union. He anticipated that a long, drawn-out war of attrition would demoralize the United States, cripple her economy and lead to its collapse, replicating what occurred to the Soviet Union. What he did not anticipate was that the U.S. would only send a small expeditionary force to Afghanistan, while devoting the bulk of its military resources towards the subjugation of Iraq, whose ruling regime had no connection with the events of September 11, 2001. In that sense, the strategic value of the consequences of 9/11 for Al-Qaeda probably exceeded their highest expectations.

In planning for its next attack on the United States, Al-Qaeda would seek to inflict a loss of such staggering proportions that it would again impel the United States into behaviors that would serve its ultimate existential goals. To achieve such an aim with conventional means, such as ordinary explosives or airplanes (as on 9/11) is probably an unlikely scenario. As suggested by the NIE on Al-Qaeda planning for a future operation on U.S. soil, it is likely that Osama bin-Laden is exploring ways of utilizing a weapon of mass destruction in a future attack.

The NIE speculates on the means of WMD that Al-Qaeda may be focusing on. Though biological and chemical weapons are possibilities, they are unlikely to be used by Al-Qaeda. These weapons are notoriously difficult to employ, as demonstrated in a terrorist attack on the Tokyo subway involving nerve gas. More importantly, while such weapons may, under certain circumstances, be deadly, they limit their effect to people, while leaving property intact. Al-Qaeda’s methodology and doctrine stresses physical damage along with loss of human life. The iconic image of the twin towers dissolving on 9/11 was more valuable to Al-Qaeda then the actual number of fatalities. For those same reasons, a radiological weapon, commonly dubbed a “dirty bomb,” also would not be of much interest to Al-Qaeda.

If Al-Qaeda is planning a future attack on America that will exceed 9/11 in its impact, there is a high probability that this operation would involve the detonation of a nuclear weapon in a major urban center within the continental United States. The capacity for even a crude nuclear weapon to inflict vast carnage and destruction within a densely populated city is unmatched by any other weapon or scenario that Al-Qaeda could conceivably employ. Captured documents and other anecdotal information point to a very high level of longstanding interest by Osama bin Laden in nuclear weapons.

In recent years, both Osama bin-Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri have issued repeated warnings that America would face attacks worse than 9/11, unless it fulfilled all of Al-Qaeda’s demands, including withdrawal of its physical presence from anywhere defined as Islamic territory. In an Internet broadcast message, al-Zawahiri warned, “You are facing the Islamic rage … what awaits you, should you press on, is far worse than anything you have seen.”

In a macabre video marking the sixth anniversary of 9/11, Osama bin Laden offered a chilling message. Warning the American people that they were responsible for the continuation of the Iraq war by virtue of having reelected President Bush, he went on to propose two alternatives for ending America’s involvement in Iraq: “The first is from our side, and it is to continue to escalate the killing and fighting against you. The second way is to reject America’s democratic system and convert to Islam…I invite you to embrace Islam.”

By fulfilling all of the theological requirements for a future attack on America, it appears that Osama bin-Laden is laying the groundwork for something “far worse” than 9/11. While his call for Americans to “embrace Islam” seems irrational to a Western mindset, in the context of Osama bin-Laden’s world this is a supremely rational act for a jihadist warrior to undertake. Having provided fair warning and an opportunity to convert to his enemy, he no longer feels any moral restraint on inflicting the ultimate destruction on the American homeland.

As reflected in the NIE referred to earlier, the American intelligence community has high confidence that if Al-Qaeda ever acquired a nuclear weapon, they would unquestionably use it against an American target. Those within leadership circles who downplay the threat of nuclear terrorism from Al-Qaeda claim that it is beyond the capability of Al-Qaeda to manufacture or otherwise obtain such weapons. Unfortunately, there is much expert opinion that holds a contrary view.

It may be difficult for Al-Qaeda to acquire an intact nuclear weapon, though not inconceivable. It is known that during the break-up of the former Soviet Union, much of that nation’s nuclear arsenal was insecure. Rumors have circulated for many years that during that chaotic period, Al-Qaeda obtained several Soviet nuclear weapons through the black market. It is impossible to know if that in fact happened, though another possible source of intact nuclear weapons is Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state that happens to be where the top Al-Qaeda leadership is believed to be in hiding. At present, a radical Islamist uprising is underway in significant parts of Pakistan, eroding the stability of the nation’s fledgling civilian government.

A more likely scenario involves Al-Qaeda making its own nuclear bombs. Though challenging, this would be within the capability of an organization with the proven sophistication of Al-Qaeda. Much of the information on making nuclear devices is within the public domain, and it is known that Osama bin-Laden met personally with two senior scientists involved with Pakistan’s nuclear weapons establishment, prior to 9/11. The barrier to building a nuclear bomb is not technical know-how but materials. Atomic weapons require fissile materials, either uranium 235 or plutonium. These materials require a national industrial infrastructure to create, so Al-Qaeda cannot fabricate fissile materials on its own.

Unfortunately, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, a vast quantity of fissile materials became dangerously insecure, vulnerable to theft or being sold by the Russian Mafia. The U.S. Congress recognized the danger, and provided funding for a program that assists the Russians in improving security at facilities that store nuclear weapons and fissile materials. In the many years that this program has been in existence, only half of the insecure Russian nuclear sites have had their security upgraded. At the present rate of funding and implementation, it may be another 10 years before the remaining nuclear sites are secure, though the Obama administration has demonstrated a far higher level of concern on this issue than the previous Bush presidency. In addition, there are many other sites throughout the world, including the United States, which store fissile materials under less than optimum security. It would be an act of extreme optimism to believe that Al-Qaeda will sit and wait ten years until all these nuclear sites have upgraded their security arrangements. Possibly, Al-Qaeda might already have such materials in its possession. Depending on the design of the bomb, as little as 35 pounds of uranium 235 would be needed to build a device with a yield similar to the weapon that destroyed Hiroshima in 1945. Should Al-Qaeda actually build such a weapon, it is highly unlikely that it would be detected by present security protocols and technology, should a jihadist cell seek to surreptitiously insert it into the United States. Contrary to public perception, nuclear weapons emit little radiation, which can be easily shielded. Once inside American borders, Al-Qaeda could deliver a nuclear bomb to any city by van or SUV.

Should a nuclear bomb ever be detonated in an American city, the carnage would defy our imagination. It is estimated that a ten-kiloton device, less powerful than the Hiroshima bomb, detonated in mid-town Manhattan during the workday, would immediately kill approximately 500,000 people. A similar number would be fated to die in the following days and weeks from the effects of radiation poisoning. Beyond the immensity of the carnage and destruction, America would be irreversibly transformed. Fear would dominate the country, with tens of millions of Americans contemplating the evacuation of their cities, uncertain if other bombs exist and would be detonated. Economic paralysis would ensue as the borders closed, while the financial markets, already weakened by the current Global Economic Crisis, would completely collapse. Civil liberties would be largely suspended, as the nation entered a new Dark Age, in which survival would take precedence over liberty. Likely, America’s relationship with the world would be radically transformed in manner that suited Al-Qaeda’s ultimate agenda.

In an interview conducted with the journalist Robert Fisk in 1997, Osama bin-Laden made his ultimate objective regarding the United States unambiguously clear. “I pray to God that He permits us to turn America into a shadow of itself,” the Al-Qaeda leader told Fisk.

While knowledgeable national security specialists take seriously the threat of weapons of mass destruction being employed in any future Al-Qaeda atrocity on American soil, outside their small circle this vital issue of national survival has barely seeped into the public consciousness Yet, should Al-Qaeda actually detonate a nuclear weapon in an American city, the entire world as we know it would cease to exist.

ENDS ARTICLE

But to Fisk the above scenario would be no more than scare-mongering, or perhaps deserved retribution, after all he didn’t blame the Taliban for beating him up.  Next time he pays them a visit he might be in no condition to say “fair cop” when if he gets home.

Quote:

Last year, after some Taliban beat him up, he [Fisk] wrote, “I would have done just the same to Robert Fisk. Or any other Westerner I could find.”

In the past year alone, Fisk has called Ariel Sharon a war criminal in no fewer than seven articles.

As Pryce-Jones writes, “About a dozen times over the past year Fisk has written that in 1983 Donald Rumsfeld met Saddam Hussein, and this is enough to make the United States responsible for Saddam’s crimes. The corpses in the mass graves of Iraq are the result of ‘American encouragement’.”

Fisk’s articles are reprinted in publications and Internet sites all over the Arab world. Fisk is regularly invited to lecture at American universities, where he is held in esteem reserved second only to the late Edward Said, for his particular brand of Middle East analysis.

But among those who are more interested in accuracy, as Pryce-Jones says, “a new word has appeared: ‘fisking’, meaning the selection of evidence solely in order to bolster preconceptions and prejudices.”

ENDS

Read Fisk, if you must, with your tongue firmly planted in your cheek. He too is an example of how the Left has lost its way, as I recently referred to here.


RELATED



Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

One Response to “The Dangers of “Fisking” – AND – Nuking America”

  1. Stirling Products Limited (ASX:STI) Gets Approval For TB And HIV Treatment “Immunoxel” In South Africa | Aids Discussion Says:

    […] The Dangers of “Fisking” – AND – Nuking America « Tony Blair […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s