AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Al-Aksa Claims WMD capability
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Here is an interesting article, not for what is stated, but what is implied.



Quote:The Aksa Martyrs' Brigades group announced on Sunday that it its members have succeeded in manufacturing chemical and biological weapons to be used against Israel.

In a leaflet distributed in the Gaza Strip, the group, which belongs to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah party, said the weapons were the result of an effort that has lasted for three years.

The statment was a response to an Israeli Security Cabinet decision to give the IDF the green light to prepare all the forces necessary for a military operation against Gaza terror cells. As of 9:00 p.m. large amounts of Golani and Givati Brigade infantry troops were amassing on the Israeli side of the Gaza security fence.

According to the statement, the first of its kind, the group managed to manufacture and develop at least 20 different types of biological and chemical weapons.

The group said its members would not hesitate to add the new weapons to long-range rockets that are being fired at Israeli communities almost every day. It also threatened to use the weapons against IDF soldiers if Israel carried out its threats to invade the Gaza Strip

To my mind here, the Captain's Quarters has the best take on this, and I agree about how this hurt the terrorists in the long run. Also, it cleary implies to me that Saddam's horde of WMDs were sent to Syria, and are being clandestinly sent to Palestine.

Quote:If they're bluffing, they're making a very big mistake. And if they're not bluffing, then they have just signed the death warrants of both Hamas and Fatah and quite possibly the Palestinian Authority.

If these terrorists have acquired chemical and biological weapons, the IDF will rightly assume that they know have a choice only between which genocide will succeed. Given their history and strong sense of survival, they will certainly make the right choice -- and that will mean the end of the Palestinians on the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The only reason the Israelis don't push them into the Jordan and Egypt is because of their identification with Western values that rejects ethnic cleansing as any solution.

Once the first chemical or biological weapon gets launched against Israel, that decision will have been taken out of their hands. The Israelis will almost certainly launch a massive strike against the Palestinians in both directions -- and while Hamas and Fatah do moderately well at targeting unarmed civilians, the IDF will slice through them like butter. And if the Palestinians expect the West to stop them, they will have miscalculated badly.

The question will be where they acquired these weapons. They do not have the research facilities to have developed WMD on their own. If they actually do possess them, it seems a probablility that someone supplied Fatah with WMD.

Who has WMD? What country stocked them, until three years ago? And where does Hamas and Islamic Jihad, at least, have themselves established? Syria -- who has long rumored to have received the Iraqi stockpiles in 2002 and 2003, just ahead of the American invasion.

The Palestinians have just tipped us off to where the WMD went, and now we know where at least some it may have ended up. The Israelis may not be alone in marching through Gaza and the West Bank.
If this is true, it's another indication that Sadaam having WMDs may not have actually been the worst case scenerio.
b5b,

I never understood why Iraq with WMD was such a big deal anyway. However,their ties to global terrorism were far greater than we knew and that does concern me

Check out

"Iraq Ties to Taliban"
The reason the weapons were moved was because we gave Saddam time to do it. Democrats told Bush they would not support the war if he did not go and try with the UN. The UN took up over a year of our time. A preemptive strike does not fully work if the enemy is made aware it is coming.

If we had done nothing the weapons would have been given to Al Qaeda to use against us. We acted and the weapons were moved to Syria and now if this is true Palestinian territories. If Bush had gone with my plan and just preempted Iraq without anyone knowing the weapons would have been found. The insurgency would be smaller due to their lack of time and planning. Bush had the legal authority given to him by congress after 9/11 who declared war on terrorism and those who were allies of Al Qaeda. Saddam Hussein was not only linked to Al Qaeda and the Taliban but had operational relationships with Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Quote:If this is true, it's another indication that Saddam having WMDs may not have actually been the worst case scenerio.

How do you mean? The second part of JohnL's post points out that it is more likely that the Aska Martyr's Brigade acquired these weapons from an outside source rather that created them themselves. The timing of their program, 3 years, is unlikely to be long enough for a group such as this to create 1, much less 20, different types of chemical and biological weapons, but is about the same amount of time that any WMD's that Saddam might have dispersed from Iraq may have been available for acquisition. And if a group such as this could have created that many different weapons in 3 years, apparently undetected by outsiders, what does that suggest about the possibility that Saddam might well have had a robust program funded by the State and easy to hide from outside prying eyes?

While the potential for Saddam using chemical or biological weapons in an otherwise conventional war of conquest against any of his neighbors or Israel was something to be concerned about, what most people actually concerned about his WMD programs were worried about was that he might supply some of these weapons to terrorist organizations. This was a stated concern of the Bush Administration before we went into Iraq. Now that it looks like we may have an example of Saddam's weapons in the hands of terrorists you throw it out as an example of why Saddam's WMD programs were nothing to worry about?

Certainly we don't know for certain that the Aska Martyr's Brigade actually has the weapons that they claim to have. If they do have them we don't know for certain how they were obtained or where they originated from. These are questions that we don't have the relevant facts to answer with certainty. Occam's razor suggests that it is more likely that if they have such weapons they acquired them from someone else, and Occam's razor also suggests that Iraq is the most likely source if it had such a program.
b5d Wrote:If this is true, it's another indication that Sadaam having WMDs may not have actually been the worst case scenerio.

Not true. Read the entire article. This means that Saddam's WMDs are being distributed around, because the Russians were able to spirit them out prior to the occupation. They went to Syria.
David:It's not that Sadaam's WMD program was nothing to worry about, but if all this is true, then going to war clearly did not help the situation. If we had not gone to war, these weapons would likely still be in Sadaam's hands, where he would be constrained from using them because of a MAD-type situation. I suppose Democrats has a point that Al-Aksa isn't Al-Qaeda, but somehow I have doubts that Al-Qaeda would have that much difficulty acquiring them from Al-Aksa, with or against their will, if they really wanted them.
Dear John L......YEP!
(and believe it or not I had not seen this when I wrote my post today on the congressman thread.)
Ken
b5d Wrote:David:It's not that Sadaam's WMD program was nothing to worry about, but if all this is true, then going to war clearly did not help the situation. If we had not gone to war, these weapons would likely still be in Sadaam's hands, where he would be constrained from using them because of a MAD-type situation. I suppose Democrats has a point that Al-Aksa isn't Al-Qaeda, but somehow I have doubts that Al-Qaeda would have that much difficulty acquiring them from Al-Aksa, with or against their will, if they really wanted them.

Let's use your example here closer to home, shall we? Let's say you live in a nice quiet little neighborhood, when this bully moves in down the street. He starts killing the neighbor's pets, robbing them when they are gone, and finally begins raping the women.

You and some of your neighbors are all for getting rid of this barbarian, but some of the neighbors will not cooperate because they are afraid that going after him will really make him mad, and instead of just raping the ladies he will kill them as well.

What would you tell these neighbors, knowing that your wife was probably next? Just a thought, don't you know? Wink1
Assuming there is no law enforcement available, I would follow the Bush doctrine and take preemptive action. If she were my wife she'd probably be able to take her own preemptive strike, since I believe in women empowering themselves and learning self defense. :lol:
This isn't just one deranged individual though - he's part of a gang. Taking out just one of them would clearly be detrimental for your health, so I'd say if you're not willing to all-out massacre the entire gang, it's time to dig in and invest in a good security system (and self-defense classes), and otherwise stay off their turf. You can help feed the police intel, as long as by the time they figure it out who it was they're all in jail, with no loose ends left to extract revenge. (The police would be better than you at tracing all of their members anyway.)
Quote:You can help feed the police intel, as long as by the time they figure it out who it was they're all in jail, with no loose ends left to extract revenge. (The police would be better than you at tracing all of their members anyway.)

You forgot just one thing. In this analogy put forth by John, the "police" would be the UN Shock . Does that alter your thinking in any way?

-S
Well, no, in this analogy "the police" isn't any specific body. In this case, we are our own police, but that still means that we should operate according to the principles a global police force would operate by - fairness and justice, and rule of law. It takes longer that way, because we have to build the trust of the "community," but in the end it gets the job done right.
Oh yes since the UN stopped 9/11, stopped the genocide in Rwanda and Sudan and the UN stopped Saddam from murdering millions. :roll:
Dems, I just said I wasn't referring to the UN.

I know it might have sounded like I was referring to an outside police force, but these analogies can get a little vague sometimes.