B.-H. Levy is at times a preening poseur; on Pakistan he is right. It is in the interest of all non-Muslims to identify, and where possible guard themselves, Pakistan's nuclear capability. Given the bloodcurdling statements of General Mirza Aslam about Jihad, given the past record of endless duplicity, given Musharraf's own obvious involvement, the U.S. simply has to recognize that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal must be neutralized, and this is far more important than obtaining Pakistani "goodwill" and cooperation in picking up a few hundred Taliban and Al Qaeda (who will be swiftly replaced by other Jihads) in the Northwest Frontier or elsewhere. Those troops are trivial; the nuclear weapons are not. America, India, and indeed those Pakistanis who want to prevent the complete destruction of their own country, and their own futures (and Musharraf should be made aware that there is NO future even for his own progeny -- his son now being an accountant in Canton, Mass., here on American suffrage -- if he refuses to collaborate. He should be read the riot act, possibly by Rumsfeld himself. And he should also be told that if he really wants to emulate Kemal Pasha Ataturk, he must make sure that the Jihadis of Pakistan lack the nuclear wherewithal. There may even be a few Pakistani generals who realize that they cannot guarantee the security of those weapons, and that if they fall into the wrong hands, they too will suffer the terrible retaaliation that will surely follow.

USA needs to be consistent in its policies on WMD. Of all the things that the Jihadis use to drum up support, it is where they point to inconsistencies and then claim that democracy is a sham. The perilous and critical question is: what is USA's policy across all nations in the Middle East regarding WMD? Is it ok for Pakistan, but not for Iraq, not ok for Iran, but ok for Israel?

These seeming contradictions are leveraged by Jihadis as rationale to raise more members to their terrorists organizations. The claim is that the USA is preventing Islamic nations from having the right of self-defense against their perception of "Zionist aggressors", which is a fallacy. However, that is what the Jihadis preach as convincing logic in the middle east.

The most important part of this Web Site is to address the issue of Jihadist behavior and how that influences Islamic nations' ability to be perceived as "Responsible" nations.

What the Jihadists do not state, and which is no doubt offensive to them, is that USA truly questions whether most of the Islamic nations that have huge terrorist, Wahabbist, and/or Jihadist groups, are "responsible" nations that can be trusted with WMD.

The dialogue needs to occur as to what is a "responsible" state that can be trusted with WMD and what are the criteria. That will offend many.

But it is a discussion that needs to occur. Simply "trusting" in questionable allies is not going to be sufficient, and not setting definable criteria as to what constitutes a "responsible" state that should be allowed to possess WMD does not set goals that many of the Islamic nations can strive towards.

Ally of convenience or not, whether Pakistan would meet such criteria as a "responsible" nation with WMD is a huge question. Given recent news on this and AQK dealings, it is likely not.

The US government is trapped in that USA needed to act BEFORE Pakistan got WMD. It also needs to vitally win the current battles against terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. However, the change necessary in Pakistan needs significant house-cleaning in the Pakistan government before it is too late.

If it is not already too late.

is any state responsible enough to have nuclear weapons.....

I do not believe that Pakistan was interested in an "Islamic bomb." I think that the stuff sold to Iran and Syria was probably financed by the Saudis, some of whom really love the IB idea.

But time will tell. I, too, find BHL a bit over the top.

A reply to "Joseph"--yes. Those countries which possess such weaponry and either use them only in the most extreme situations (and sometimes not even then: Israel refrained from using nuclear weapons in 1973, despite the surprise attack and its endangered position). But more importantly, those states which are Muslim and, therefore, populated by people large numbers of whom are inculcated with a hatred of all non-Muslims, as part of their daily bread, are a danger. Israel's nuclear capacity keeps it from being destroyed as an Infidel entity -- indeed, is the only effective peacekeeper given that all treaties it makes with Muslim states be broken by those states whenever possible (cf. the model of the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya, which REQUIRES all such treaties to be broken, by the Muslim side, whenever possible); it is the only way to keep permanent peace between Muslim Arabs and Israel (treaties, negotiations, and suchllike are silly). As for other countries, we should worry about Pakistan's nuclear weapons, but not those in control of Hindu India, worry about Indonesia trying to acquire such weapons, but not worry one whit about Australia getting them.

The problem is Jihad --that is, the central tenets of Islam -- and those who, even if they are not Muslims --e.g. Naim Ateek, Michel Sabbah, and other "Christian" Palestinian Arabs -- whose deeds and words objectively promote the Jihad.

Joseph, I suggest you look to the past fifty years of U.S. history. There were many, many times where we could have used nukes, and more than a few where we should have, but didn't. If that's not responsible to the point of over-caution, I don't know what is. Many other nations have demonstrated similar restraint. But to have 'kill the kuffir' types with nuclear weapons or other WMD capacities is a true nightmare scenario. Seeking to rid the world of nukes will only make us unprepared to deal with the hatred unleashed by radical Islamists if they do obtain such devices. Is that what you want? Better be prepared to bury your friends and your family then, if you can still recognize them after such an attack.

BHL sees the future - he actually is mentioning the facts of collaboration - and BTW this terrorist organization is only showing off the last months with nuclear strength - you see it - and PLEASE WHY is Russia doin mow its miserable exercise of a little nuke war - is there something going on - YES!

Michael Ledeen is likely correct to spot Saudi involvement here.

Joseph's "contribution" is so puerile as to not be worthy of response.

I hark back to my college years decades ago, when the MAD doctrine was framed within the ambit of "rationality at the brink". Both the Soviets and the West predicated all strategic planning on this basic premise- fortunately. But in dealing with Islamists (aka good Muslims, merely giving effect to the Koran and the Hadith), I don't believe that we in the non-Muslim world can safely make this assumption.

The conclusion?- if we assume that the jinn is out of the bottle, what with Pakistan's dissemination of nuclear technology with State sanction, it is inevitable that the jihadis will detonate such a device against US (perhaps, more generally, Western- or Indian?) interests in due course. Why? Because a threat to incinerate Pakistan if such jihadi action occurs will not suffice as a deterrent against religious fanaticism. Cartesian logic is not going to be in play in this situation.

And the Muslim extremists' target need not be a city- even the detonation of a small nuke amongst one of the American naval carrier fleets would cause staggering human and capital losses.

As a result of the IAEA and the UN sitting about over the past two decades, chattering idly away as some of the world's most dangerous regimes built strategic atomic capabillity, the First World is now presented with a particluarly horrifying quandary, one which makes the Cold War appear as halcyon days.

Let us face the cruel facts: the Islamists are fare more dangerous than the Soviets or the Chi-Coms. Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) worked during the Cold War because the Soviets and the Chi-Coms wanted to live as much as we do.

Not so with the Islamists. How often have we heard them say how much they "love death more than we love life"?

Does anyone doubt it? The MAD scenario doesn't work at all with people who love killing so much they don't mind dying themselves to achieve it.

What we need is a true survival strategy. That means a home front too with bomb shelters, safe food and water stores, and all the rest.

Perhaps the easiest way out of this if all kufur converted to Islam. Then there would be no need for any use of the nuclear weapons of self defence.

maybe my point in reference to the nuclear weapon bit is that its irresponsible for any country to have nuclear weapons. but being rational knowing that its impossible to remove them from the planet i propose a idea. all nuclear weapon possessing countries must reduce there stockpile to 100 air dropped bombs. these bombs must be 50kiloton non hydrogen devices and cannot be greater than or less then 50kilotons. the reasoning for this is it would one prevent countries from developing high yield hydrogen bombs and also prevent the development of low yield earth penetrating or tactical nuclear weapons that have a higher probability of being used. the 50 kiloton yield is perfect because it is large enough to destroy a city and being a active deterent to keep countries from using them. now this idea is probably not popular here and thats fine...

i dont think the usa has anything to fear as long as our dictator president for life musharef is in power in pakistan.....

10 years from now lets see if he has actually had a presidential election....

another funny thing about him is recently he retired his position of general and yet he still wears his cliched dicator military uniform at public gatherings (do these guys all goto the same
miltary coup school)

Joseph:

I'm too busy and too wealthy to have to wade through the bandwidth you occupy on this server. Do everyone here a favor, and simply lurk. You offer no added benefit to the thread.

convert to Islam? I don't think so. Why would any sane person choose to submit. That's the word, boys and girls. The word is worship or adore, it's SUBMIT World history and present world events demonstrate what that means.…death; sometimes physical death, but always emotional death.

earl,

what does being wealthy have to do with anything?

kinda arrogant statement bucko

your gonna have a big shock when china's GDP surpasses the US... and your superpower has another superpower on the block

last thing for today...

mecca has a population close to 700,000(thats civilians) dropping a 75 kiloton nuke on it like you advocated would be a example of mass murder/war crime on a massive scale. heck i bet it would kill at least 200,000 people in one year....

not very christian if you think about it....

Joseph.......please.......you've become very boring with your idiotic statements.....you must think you're a judge or something......what we see is a liberal, (admitted) athiest, who likes to jab at us with assinine statements.

No sense in having a battle of wits with you, we'd be fighting an unarmed man, or are you? Cretin.

D.C.

Christianity permits self-defense. Even Christ became indignant and violent in the Temple when overturning the moneylenders' tables. Thus, no one can be labled Un-Christian in this discussion. If I know a man is about to lob a bomb at my house, I will shoot him down. It is self-defense. Any invasion, whether a foreign government, or a NGO, such as Al Qaeda, Hizbollah, or persons attempting to overtake from within, i.e. clerics that advocate overthrow of my government and would require that I change my religion, lifestyle, and customs, are threatening me. I will defend myself. At that is NOT un-Christian.

"but just the right thing to do"
in regards to a nuclear strike on a civilian population

the right thing to do!

okay you are a racist its proven.... not only that you are a evil person. how can you say something like that. thats 700,000 people mothers ,fathers,sisters ,brothers you really are out there and should appologize for saying something like that.

and if the rest of this forum cannont condemm adela's statement that it truly shows your beliefs and motives.

I think it important to note that neither I nor the Jihad Watch staff endorse the destruction of Mecca or the total eradication of Islam. The very thing that distinguishes us from terrorists is a commitment to genuine justice, the rule of just law, and recognition of the equality of rights of all people. If we cannot win the war on terror without resorting to indiscriminate killing of civilians, we will have become like those who oppose us, and the war will not be worth winning.

I am not going to get into any arguments here, and these positions are already on my Bio/FAQ page, but I thought it necessary to restate Jihad Watch's position here.

hahhah.. You all got so fired up Robert had to step in and give the Daddy speech to you all.... man that’s funny!

I for one believe just because we are very powerful does not mean we should fight with our hands behind our backs. If Islam as a whole continues to call for the destruction of the west or take actions or inaction to make this happen or allow this to happen, then there should absolutely be nothing that is off limits including the destruction of their holy sites to make our point. I also believe diplomacy will work as well. We have showed we are willing to use force. Words and action go hand in hand.

I agree with Robert and do not advocate the destruction of Muslims because they are Muslim. No more then we can advocate the destruction of the Jews by the Nazi's. We all agree that was a disgusting display of humanity. If we repeated that against the Muslims not only would it be terribly wrong but also in the long run it would only further their cause.

I would prefer that we all come to an understanding that live and let live as the best policy. We all concern ourselves less with others beliefs and work on our own spiritual walk. This will be very hard for them considering the Quran teaches they are to force others to believe as they do. Time will tell how this all will play out.

Thanks Nathan, that was my fault for not being more specific with my statement. WH, I feel that live and let live is best. However, I think we all know what we're dealing with here, and the fact that a writer posted that we should all convert to Islam really set me off.

I apologize to those of you I have respect for on this page, which is just about everyone, especially Robert. This does not include Sir Joseph the agitator, any lunatics making hollow threats, or bigots that suggest we convert to Islam...

For all of you that I do value your opinion and respect, please feel free to point out any errors I may make, or statements that I may be incomplete with.

Thanks to all,

D.C.