London top cop: Al Qaeda a bigger threat to civilians than the Nazis

posted at 10:18 am on December 22, 2006 by Allahpundit

Really? Bigger than a regime that inflicted 43,000 deaths on his own city and pioneered death factories for quick-n-easy genocide?

I appreciate the need to impress upon people the seriousness of the threat, but this comparison does neither him nor us any favors. At least at this point.

Better make sure we win in Iraq, though, or the analogy’s liable to become a bit more apt:

The CIA this month conducted a simulation of how the Iraq war affects the global jihadist movement, and one conclusion was that a U.S. loss would embolden al Qaeda to expand its ranks of terrorists as well as pick new strategic targets, according to sources familiar with the two-day exercise…

The CIA-sponsored simulation predicts that al Qaeda will view a U.S. defeat in Iraq as another jihadist victory over a superpower and one that will bring it even more terrorist recruits.

“When we did the simulation, the ramifications were enormous,” said the source, who asked not to be named. The source said al Qaeda will proclaim, “God has given us a second victory over a superpower.

“Imagine what defeat in Iraq would do,” said the source. “Al Qaeda picks new targets after it thinks it’s won.”

The source isn’t named so it could be someone who’s in the tank for Bush. And we all know how many of those there are in the CIA.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

This is the real problem with using conflict interruptus as a damage control method.

I don’t know how you convince regular Joes how a pull out would be horrible beyond imagination.

liberrocky on December 22, 2006 at 10:31 AM

al Qaeda has the likely intention of killing more Britons than Hitler probably ever did, and with the spread and lethality of nuclear weapons technologies, al Qaeda certainly has the possibility (if not the probability) of killing more Londoners in a single strike than the Nazis did during the Blitz.

Technically, he might be correct. Practically, he’s overstating things.

Bob Owens on December 22, 2006 at 10:33 AM

Unfortunately for the Brits, the majority of al Qaeda appear to be British citizens. And except for some lip service, the British seem to still be worshiping the god of Political Correctness.

EF on December 22, 2006 at 10:50 AM

Hmmmm. The CIA had to do a simulation to figure this out?

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on December 22, 2006 at 10:56 AM

The ‘threat’ is that they can somehow get a nuke and wipe cities off the map. Al qaeda hasn’t caused as much damage yet, but they are certainly a bigger threat if allowed to continue.

Kevin M on December 22, 2006 at 11:00 AM

It’s said to conclude, especially as Christmas approaches, but the big fight is on whether we like it or not. Unfortunately, the west, still, is unprepared mentally for the challenge and won’t be until millions (m i l l i o n s) of people are killed. Good bye London, Paris, Madrid, and maybe Rome, NYC and DC (my home, by the way). I just can’t imagine it not happening now.

cms on December 22, 2006 at 11:01 AM

I suppose it depends on how you define “a bigger threat”. I tend to think that Al Qaeda Jihadi Islam is a more widespread threat than the Nazis. It also may be able to bend into a population easier than the Nazis were.

However, that’s just me, and I may be wrong.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 22, 2006 at 11:11 AM

blend not bend

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 22, 2006 at 11:11 AM

Al Qaeda a bigger threat to civilians than the Nazis.

It may aleady be as big a threat if not bigger. What Brit or American doesn’t think about the threat of terror daily? Is it over 400 million? Over a billion people daily worry about this threat. DAILY.

The last thing I want to do is NOT take a top cop from London at his word. When do we start to listen and believe folks?
Thats the libs job.
I for one, will back the guy from London with the gumballs to say it outloud.

shooter on December 22, 2006 at 11:24 AM

So he has to wait until AFTER AQ kills a certain number of people before he can say that there’s a THREAT that they will do so?

It has often been said that a single French division, sent in when Hitler militarized the Rheinland in violation of Versailles, would have forced him to back down, most likely without a single shot having been fired. The threat of what the Nazis could eventually do was real on that day, provided that one had the long-term thinking of a Winston Churchill to perceive that threat.

The biggest way that the jihadis are a bigger threat than the Nazis is that the latter had a chain of command, and after Hitler offed himself, Reichspräsident Karl Dönitz was able to order Alfred Jodl to surrender to the Allies, and the troops followed orders. From the jihadi perspective, Anwar Sadat ‘surrendered to the Zionist Entity’ by making peace with Israel, and we all know how well that worked out for him. If Osama bin Laden were to sign a treaty of peace, plenty of his ‘troops’ would say that the Jooooz got to him, and keep on blowing people up.

The Monster on December 22, 2006 at 11:46 AM

Really? Bigger than a regime that inflicted 43,000 deaths on his own city and pioneered death factories for quick-n-easy genocide?
I appreciate the need to impress upon people the seriousness of the threat, but this comparison does neither him nor us any favors. At least at this point.

I could not DISAGREE with you more, Allah. If the Jihadists get their grimy little hands on nukes, they can both “catch-up” and “surpass” the atrocities committed by the Nazis in a single day of earthly time. It has taken them almost 4 years to kill 3000+ U.S. soldiers (by conventional means). Need I remind you that it only took a matter of minutes to kill an equal number of our civilians on 9/11 when our guard was down and they had the element of surprise. You can bet your bippy, that if they get their hands on nuclear weapons, they WON’T be using them against our soldiers — they’ll be using them against you and me, right here in our urban metropolitan enclaves. ‘Nuff said.

CyberCipher on December 22, 2006 at 12:18 PM

I agree with CyberCipher. I think it was den Beste in response to wrechard’s three conjectures who outlined the difference between objectives and ability when it came to the jihadists. Right now they do not have the ability to meet their objectives. However, their objectives are vastly more threatening to out existence than the Nazis. (Although I will conceed that towards the end of the war Hitler would have readily nuked Britain and the US if given the chance.) The Jihadis goal is our conversion or death. There is no surrender.

As den Beste theorized, if they get a nuclear weapon which is easily replicated we will have no choice but to threaten their destruction or surrender. We would have to seize every possible source of Jihadi nuclear material. Since we could not do this without their consent, our military could not fight that many wars, our only choice would be the threat of nuclear annihilation. And we would have do it. Otherwise, we would slowly die as they picked off our cities.

The police chief is right. The jihadis are every bit as malevolent as Hitler and lacking only the means which they seem to be rapidly gathering.

Bill C on December 22, 2006 at 12:47 PM

I could not DISAGREE with you more, Allah. If the Jihadists get their grimy little hands on nukes, they can both “catch-up” and “surpass” the atrocities committed by the Nazis in a single day of earthly time. It

I think they key word in your statement is if. If jihadists get their hands on one or more nukes then of course they pose a greater threat to civilians than the Nazis. That is a big if though, and hopefully one that will never happen.

As of right now though, al-Queda does not pose nearly as big of threat as the Nazi’s did. They are unorganized and poorly equipped whereas the Nazi’s were super-organized and equiped with the best technology in the world. A nuclear weapon would change everything, but until then, no.

JaHerer22 on December 22, 2006 at 1:15 PM

So this guy says that the fascists today are a greater threat to the world, currently, than the Nazis were at the height of their power. Talk about painting with broad stokes.

Could they be if left unchecked? Well sure! Are they worse today than the actual Nazis were? Not even close, thank God and the U.S. Military. And thank George Bush too; doubting that anyone here has done that in a while.

Of course, if they are ever capable of delivering and detonating a nuclear device at their will; they will easily reach the 6 million mark with only a few attacks. The whole damn point is to stop all this NOW before it ever gets to that point. That is why striking first and striking effectively is so important.

Cary on December 22, 2006 at 1:33 PM

JaHerer22,

I think they key word in your statement is if. If jihadists get their hands on one or more nukes then of course they pose a greater threat to civilians than the Nazis. That is a big if though, and hopefully one that will never happen.

Even though you are without a doubt one of the MOST reprehensible trolls that frequents this site (had to get that dig in), I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with you. The MOST alarming development in recent days is North Korea going nuclear. Kim Jong Il’s people are starving. Industrialized nations have imposed sanctions. That bastard desperately needs money. Bin Laden and his family HAVE money. Lots of money. Enough to buy a nuke from a tin-palted dictator with delusions of God-hood? You betcha.’ Would the North Koreans hesitate to sell one? Nope. Would Bin Laden hesitate to use one? Nope.

Maybe you are a gambler at heart. Maybe it doesn’t bother you to play a game of “Russion roulette.” That’s not me. I don’t like it one bit — and I think that it is TOTALLY unfair and egregious for you and your ilk to drag the rest of us into your little game of suicide. ‘Nuff said.

CyberCipher on December 22, 2006 at 1:38 PM

Cybercipher,

First, thanks for the compliment. But second, I don’t really understand where your criticism is coming from. I generally agree with you that N. Korea’s nuclear program is very alarming and the possibilty that they would sell nuclear technology is very real. I would think Kim jong-Il realizes that if a nuke was detonated on U.S. soil that was traced back to him, both he and he country would cease to exsist and this would deter him somewhat. Although he is one world leader who is legitamitly insane so it’s hard to know what would deter him.

I don’t know where you get this notion that I want to play Russian Roulette with a bomb though. Nothing in my post would suggest that and I am in full support of preventing nuclear weapons from being developed by any country and I believe we need to do everything possible to keep them out of the hands of terrorists. Are you just generalizing and telling me what I believe based on your liberal stereotypes? Let me assure you I have no suicide wish and am very happy with life.

JaHerer22 on December 22, 2006 at 2:02 PM

London top cop: Al Qaeda a bigger threat to civilians than the Nazis

Quick, Jane Skinner, say that 5 times fast!

RightWinged on December 22, 2006 at 2:15 PM

One reason to fight the long fight in Iraq to an unambiguous victory is when theybrought down the USSR via Afganistan, they figured they could take us too. Jihadis are the biggest narcicists on the planet. They feel “humiliated” knowing we could erase them if we hit them with everything we have and turn the Middle East into our “happy pumping ground”. Yet if we lack the will – they win, and inflate their collective ego to compensate for the tacit knowlege of their failed society. Even Saddam claimed victory in 91′ after the”mother of all battles”. It’s in their DNA. They are the Black Knight in MP’s Holy Grail. We just have to posess the will to…
well, you remember.

Buck Turgidson on December 23, 2006 at 1:34 AM

Nukes exist. So long as they do, anything — even down to traffic disputes and crappy Secret Santa gifts — can be seen as potentially leading to nuclear holocaust, if all you consider is the desire of the button-pushing party. Wanting to and being able to are very different things, especially with something as complicated and difficult to secure or produce as a nuclear weapon.

Mark Jaquith on December 23, 2006 at 7:50 AM

The only thing hard to make in a nuclear bomb is concentrated fissible material, Mark. The bomb is fairly simple and almost anyone could make one.

So, once Iran successfully concentrates U-235, what’s to stop them from giving 50 lbs of the stuff to al qaeda? They have plausible deniability, since they could blame Pakistan, N. Korea, or even Russia for supplying the material. Once they share the technology with other muslim countries, the list of possible suppliers would be large enough that it would be impossible to lay blame specifically on Iran.

What could we do if nuclear bombs start going off on the Jordan/Israeli border, set off by truck driving suicide bomber? How about some US port? Can we attack Iran?

Probably not. Truthers would think the government did it. Liberals would say we deserved to get bombed for some liberal reason or another, and that we shouldn’t respond because violence begets violence. There is serious incentive for Iran to share the stuff with al qaeda. Hurt the US, remove Israel, maybe blow some Russians up in the hopes of grabbing Chechnya… the list is long. What is their incentive NOT to share it? And what would al qaeda’s incentive not to set one off be?

Kevin M on December 23, 2006 at 9:47 AM

I don’t know if everyone is aware of, or tends to think about this, but Britain was a silent partner in the Holocaust, and when they were occupying Israel, they would not allow Jewish refugees from the Holocaust to come there, nor would they allow more than a few of them to travel to Britain during WW2. The kind of thinking that this British officer in the Telegraph report is showing seems to reflect the kind of insane mindset that’s been plaguing Britain for quite a long time now, depending on how far you can trace it back in history.

Avi Green on December 23, 2006 at 2:57 PM