Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Nukes and Nations

Islamophobic wrote:
unfortunately, Hady's country (Egypt) will be nothing but radioactive green glass when we in the west have done our neccessary business. We will do it with a heavy heart, but in the wake of the nuking of Paris and London in 2009, it will be done. And Islam will be gone forever.

One hears this more and more. There seems to be an eagerness for things to get worse in order to have an excuse to use the ultimate weapon against an enemy that can not defend itself.

Retaliation against Egypt will not be justified after Nuclear weapons have been used against Paris and London. The enemy that uses the weapons is Al-Qa'da. That is not the same as Egypt. Al-Qa'da is a network with an estimated 50,000 to 70,000 members spread over the whole world. Attacking Egypt and destroying it, including the archive in the soil of 6,000 years of human civilisation, including 80 million men, women and children will not destroy Islam. Islam is widely dispersed and it will survive on all the continents were it is now present.

The attacker whether it is France, the UK or the USA will have morally destroyed itself and will sink away in guilt and self-hatred, losing its will to exist. The current self-hatred of the cultural elite will spread even further and wider, a horrible and depressive perspective. No, even in case of a Nuclear attack by Muslim terrorists Western leaders must do the utmost to avoid a Nuclear response.

The way to destroy Al-Qa'da has not been figured out yet. Perhaps it is even impossible. Like the internet which is a network that has been designed to survive a Nuclear attack by dispersal, decentralisation and duplication Al-Qa'da offers no target for a Nuclear attack and is the perfect force in the Nuclear age. Both Western and Islamic city based societies are targets for Nuclear weapons, but a network is not.
Nuclear weapons will prolifirate whether we want it or not. Technology trickles down. Originally Nuclear weapons were only available to the USA. Then the Soviet Union obtained the Bomb. Then it was France and the UK. Later China, Israel, India and Pakistan obtained the bomb. Nowadays Nuclear technology has become so cheap and ubiquitous that small countries like The Netherlands, Denmark, Greece and Ireland could built them if they wanted to. Bigger countries like Turkey and Iran can as well. When more and more commercial firms and independent technologists (contractors)will be able to built Nuclear bombs states will lose their monopoly over Nuclear weapons. The weapon will fall in the hands of ideological and criminal networks such as Al-Qa'da and they will be able to use the weapon. States cannot use it, because they have territoria and populations that are vunerable to retaliation but networks a nigh impossible to target by atom splitting firepower. This means that states are doomed as socio-political units. States will not be able to guarantee the security of its citizens. Territorial States will become irrelevant unable to persuede citizens to pay taxes and obey laws and be replaced by social units that are not targets for Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Osama Bin Laden's Al-Qa'da organisation is a Transnational Insurgent Network (TIN) or a coalition of several of those networks that span the globe, but are particularly strong were states are already weak and there is a big Islamic population. They are strong in Indonesia, in parts of Africa, in Afghanistan, the Autonomous Tribal Areas in Pakistan and their strength has grown in Iraq after the collaps of the rule of Saddam Hussain. They have a presence in Europe amongst the refugee and guestworker populations and are tiny in the United States.

"sees the future very clearly: the balance of power will change; the international system built-up by the West since the Treaty of Westphalia will collapse; and a new international system will rise under the leadership of a mighty Islamic state."

So the strategy of Al-Qa'da is the overthrow of the type of order that was first established by the peace of Westphalia in Muenster in 1648 when the religious wars that had been plagueing Europe were ended. The warring Catholic and Protestant churches were replaced by a territorial order were the local Prince, King or Stadtholder would determine the religion of a social political unit.

Out of the Peace of Westphalia grew a new order of tolerant, secular states in which religion of citizens mattered less and less, until secularism became almost a religious value for Westerners. What counted was the state to which one belonged and the state was defined by a territorium and by a bureacracy.

Multiculturalism is the ultimate development of souvereing territorial states, citizens of Multicultural states are supposed to be completely defined by the laws and territorium of the state and not by any kind of heritage, class, kinship, race or religion.

Al-Qa'da has stated it wants to overthrow this system of Souvereign states. The basic strategy is to be able to withstand any punishment that its opponent tries to inflict on it, by going on to recruit new terrorists all the time, to replace those who are lost by natural attrition and activities of the US and it allies.

Because of its weak armaments and low level of military proficiency it is not able to face conventional armies in the field, but it is able to survive and place pin pricks to show that it is alive. Also it must carry out renewed attacks in the West in order to convince the Western public that their governments are not able to protect them.

"Al-Qa’da’s principal ideologist anticipates no major obstacles in the way of the organization to achieving its strategic aims: breaking the existing world order, uprooting Western dominance in the world and bringing the Muslim world to its natural position as the world’s leading power"

If Al-Qa'da or a successor organisation obtains WMDs they will be successful I think. In the long run technology will make WMD available to TIN's so if Al-Qa'da fails another Transnational Insurgent Network will do it. Right now neither Al-Qa'da is making much headway. The US are just killing the lowest rungs of the network with fresh and green recruits. The cadre of Al-Qa'da is not touched and keeps on recruiting and fundraising.

On the other hand is the spirit of the Western public increasing. The original populations of the West are getting more and more unhappy with the terrorists and increasingly hostile to Islam. So it seems that Al-Qa'da is creating a new enemy: the Western public.

"i dearly hope that the above scenario (Nuking the Middle East) never happens, and that we just flood the middle east with christianity, macdonalds pop music and other stuff - i dearly hope that the revolution will come from within."

I too hope that a Western nation will never be so unwise as to obliterate reasonably innocent civilian populations. In order to build and sustain our societies, we need to be moral and work to develop ourselves spiritually and in character. Although I fall short of having such a great moral character, due to my temper and general nastiness I still retain the hope I will become mild and mellow with age.

Hoping for a revolution within Islam is not a good idea. The West must disconnect itself from the Islamic world and other centres of disorder and promote peace, order and spirituality amongst it constituent tribes. God dammit!

The breakdown of the state should be no cause of concern to true conservatives. The Conservative creed rests on family (kin), religion and tradition to shape society. The State on the other hand is the false God of the Left. Seeing it discredited and dismantled should give us cause to great satisfaction and happiness. The Left and Islam in the West are now allies trying to bring the established order down. But they are false allies for they have no common cause. The Right will be the great benificiary of this upheaval, but before it is so there shall be upheaval and great confusion.


Charles Martel said...

"daily politics" - a bbc program

realplayer stream here

go forward about 10 minutes for the interview with Peter Hitchens (on the right) and George Galloway (on the left).

Hitchens makes an incredibly valid point - if the "west" doesnt even have a sense of what it is, in terms of nationalism or religion, and is so overtaken with political correctness, then it is no wonder that Muslims reject that and turned to more radical Islam.

watch the stream - he makes the point far better than i would.

Getting back to your post , your idea of disconnecting from Islam is feasible - but only if we kick our Middle East oil habit.

Wiag said...

Kicking our craving for oil is feasable. It's the first senseable thing I heard Bush say since a long time, that the US has to replace oil with a more abundantly available (and cleaner) source in the next 20 years...

I do think that the Western World could have made much more progress in this field had they started 20 years earlier. A lot of 'new' sources of energy (eg. from bio-mass) isn't that high tech, and we could have made headway much earlier. (Hindsight, sigh!)