VIETNAM VETERANS FOR ACADEMIC REFORM
The University of Kansas Student Auxiliary
V.V.A.R.: Leading the student revolt on campus against speech codes, political correctness, multiculturalism, gender feminism, dormitory re-education, lying about Vietnam, and other instruments of academic oppression.
Leonard Magruder - Founder/President
Former professor of psychology - Suffolk College, N.Y.
Member: National Association of Scholars
CONTACT: Magruder44@aol.com - Phone: 785-312-9303
STUDENT ORGANIZATION AT UNIV. OF KANSAS CALLS FOR NATIONAL DEBATE ON PLAN TO DETER TERRORISTS
By Leonard Magruder
1/13/04
“Only truly spectacular acts of mass murder provides the propaganda the terrorists’ cause requires. They will try again—they have to. There is no middle way for Americans: It is victory or holocaust.”
– An End to Evil, Frum and Perle
(Associated Pres, Nov. 16, 2003) “Al-Qassl’a, an Islamist Internet forum, today posted an interview allegedly with Aba Salma Al-Hijazi, an al-Qaeda commander closest to Osama bin-Laden. Surrounded by five masked men carrying missiles he said, ‘a huge and very courageous strike’ will take place…and that the number of ‘infidels’ expected to be killed in the attack exceeds 100,000. He stated that the attacks will be carried out in a way that will ‘amaze the world’ and turn al-Qaeda into an organization that ‘horrifies the world until the law of Allah (Sharia) is implemented.’ He said Americans would be the main target, in order to cause ‘disintegration and collapse.’”
Leonard Magruder, President of Vietnam Veterans for Academic Reform, speaking for his student group at the Univ. of Kansas, said today that a second voice has been added to his efforts to get the nation to implement a plan of deterrence to stop terrorism. The current plan of “patient accumulation of success (Bush),“ while successful in many ways, has little hope of stopping terrorism in the long run. As some terrorists are being caught, others could be placing nuclear devices in American cities. The whole terrorist movement, he said, must be stopped in its tracks simultaneously. He and his student group are urging national debate on a plan of deterrence, and momentum for such is building, even as time is running out and threats of massive destruction, as seen in the news item above, continue.
The only exploration of the issue so far is found in two recent articles sent out by Mr. Magruder. America’s Answer, by J. Patrick Griffin, Jr., (Xulon Press, $14.95) advertised last week in a full-page ad in The Washington Times, outlines a second, similar proposal which we discuss below. Said Mr. Magruder, “We urge the American public to get this book, read it, discuss it, modify it if need be, talk to your teacher or professor about discussing it, and get it into the hands of people in power that can do something to implement the plan or a variation thereof. We urge some class or group at K.U. to invite us to speak on this crucial subject, or perhaps the local paper or television station will cover it. Also, help this become a national issue by passing along this e-mail. Time is of the essence. If they have a nuclear device there is nothing to keep the terrorists from destroying Washington tomorrow.
“Developing a deterrence along the lines of “mutually assured destruction” (MAD), the policy by which we maintained peace with the Soviet Union for 50 years, is the only possible answer to the extreme threat civilization now faces. Such a plan for deterrence must become the topic of the hour if America is to survive.
“The basic idea, of course, is to warn al-Qaeda immediately that any attack on the U.S. or any nation of the free world, instead of expanding Islamist goals for world conquest, will, by instant retaliation, do exactly the opposite, cost the Muslim world half its territory.”
The following is from the Griffin book:
“Our success in World War ll with the militant civilization of Japan tells us that doubt and fear can be created in a people who had persuaded themselves, as the terrorists have, of inevitable success. Until we reduced Hirohito from a god to a man, Japanese civilization had been the most fanatically militant force on earth, shocking the world with its brutality and its resolve, not least in the form of suicide fighters ending their lives in spectacular airplane crashes against Allied positions. At Hiroshima, however, we destroyed the generative core of an enemy that had pledged itself and the name of its god to our destruction. A parallel measure will be required for a genuine defeat of the Islamic terrorist movment.
“Campaigns in the name of a god have always posed an especially terrifying threat to mankind, as one’s eternal salvation, one’s escape from hell, is often understood to be involved. But Hiroshima compelled the Japanese to recognize the insanity of believing their god would give them world domination and the same psychology must be invoked again. When Americans saw the pictures of the aftermath of Hiroshima there was no joy or satisfaction in our collective soul. We had not done something that made us feel good, but we had done something that made our enemies feel very bad. In doing this, we crushed their myth, and thereby brought the war to an end, saving, perhaps, a million American lives.”
Islamic radicals have linked their concept of God to their campaign of death against Americans. If you doubt this, study carefully what Osama bin- Laden said in his proclamation of war:
“We, with God’s help, call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money...divide their nation, tear them to shreds, destroy their economy, burn their companies, ruin their welfre, sink their ships, and kill them on land, sea, and air. May Allah torture them by your hands.”
The jihad is against all unbelievers. If they do not submit to the will of Allah they must be put to death without mercy. “Such things will happen in America, it is the will of Allah,” said one al-Qaeda leader. “We will offer no chance for America to come to an agreement with the righteous warriors, no possibility for compromise, no hope for a treaty, no attempt at solution. The war will be waged until the United States remains a memory.”
Under these circumstances as laid down by the enemy we have no choice but to attempt to deter them, whatever it takes. There must be no confusion on this point. They are willing and able to destroy us. Is there any doubt that they could do this with 15 nuclear devices going off simultaneously in American cities? There are many times this number of such devices believed to be missing from world arsenals with some believed by experts to be in the hands of the terrorists. How can we possibly take a chance?
Benjamin Netanyahu, who as prime minister of Israel became intimately familiar with terrorism, explains the interrelationship between countries and terrorists in his book, Fighting Terrorism, written even before we invaded Afghanistan:
“The first and most crucial thing to understand is that there is no international terrorism without the support of sovereign states, regimes that aid and abet it. Terrorists are not suspended in midair. They train, arm, and indoctrinate their killers from within a safe haven on territory provided by terrorist states. We must declare terrorism a crime against humanity, consider the terrorists enemies of mankind, to be given no quarter and no consideration for their purported grievances. The Allies did not look for the “root cause” of Nazism because they knew that some acts are evil in and of themselves, and do not deserve any consideration or “understanding.” Nothing justified Nazism. Nothing justifies terrorism. These regimes, like all other terrorists states, must be given a forthright demand: Stop terrorism or face destruction.
“This is the great mission that now stands before the free world. That the world is standing in front of an abyss seems to be only barely understood.”
Another who early on understood the need for deterrence was former Secretary of State George Shultz. He said: “Can we as a country stand in a purely defensive posture and absorb the blows dealt by terrorists? I think not. A purely passive defense does not provide enough of a deterrent to terrorism and the states that sponsor it. It is time to think long, hard, and seriously about more active means of defense.”
President Bush and Prime Minister Blair have tried to tell the world we are not at war with Islam, that al-Qaeda is only a fringe group. That may be reassuring, but it is misleading. Tens of millions of people across the Muslim world support bin Laden, wonder if he does not in fact represent “true” Islam, acting out the violence against “infidels” in the Koran that the moderates try to ignore. The more moderate majority are a silent majority and they are rapidly losing to the more radical elements the contest over who will control and define Islam.
There are milllions of Muslims who, no doubt, do not suscribe to the vision of the terrorists, but they have shown themselves unable or unwilling to halt the escalating madness of their co-religionists, primarily because of the confusing dual presence in the Koran of scriptures urging peace and others urging violence. It is a telling fact that protest against the violence of the terrorists has been almost totally absent in Muslim countries. Even friendly Muslim countries have been strikingly reticent when it comes to condemning 9/11. Terrorism, therefore, is inextricably linked, although in some cases possibly only potentially, with the entirety of the Muslim world and it is very likely that in the end, all, the violent and the peaceful alike, however unjust, will share the same fate through their common link to the Koran.
The four phases of the terrorist vision are:
1) A withdrawal of all Western presence from the Middle East
2) The destruction of Israel
3) The destruction of America
4) The entire world either converts to Islam or is murdered.
Writes Griffin in America’s Answer:
“How can we feel good at the thought of allowing this problem to continue for the next fifty years or more? Our lifetimes and the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren would be punctuated by horrific terrorist assaults and nightly news programs dominated by blood, mayhem and horror.
“A successful nuclear strike, say for example, on Washington, would rip the nation apart with disbelief and terror. It is safe to say that no reasonably formulated deterrent to such a potential attack can be considered “too radical.” My proposal for an immediate, viable, and effective deterrent to such a potential attack can be stated quite simply. A nuclear, chemical, or biological attack by Islamic terrorists against America would forfeit the existence of what is most sacred to the Islamic terrorists, Mecca, by nuclear attack, and the destruction by conventional means by the Israelis of the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. [The Magruder plan adds the simultaneous invasions of Iran, Syria, and possibly Saudi Arabia, all deeply involved with terrorism.]
“A conventional weapon on Mecca would provoke resistance rather than trembling, since the destruction could be repaired. A nuclear weapon would render the region of this landmark unrecognizable and uninhabitable.
“The militants are currently viewed by tens of millions of Muslims as the heroes of Islam, but we have the capacity to create events that would show them to be, in fact, an extreme threat to Islam.
“To the militants, Mecca is a spiritual landmark testifying that Allah will bless their efforts to convert or destroy every non-Islamic society in the world. Having linked its concept of God to its success over the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and to its attacks on the Twin Towers, the terrorist movement now believes itself indestructible, protected by Allah. They see the current situation as a religious war between non-Islamic societies and the warriors of Allah. Until we confront the matter at this level, we have no realistic chance of truly defeating them. Until we dismatle their psychology at its source, nothing we do can threaten the religously inspired confidence that their god will bless their efforts to destroy America and every other non-Islamic society.
“So long as we allow them to believe this, we cannot win this war. We will have left the conclusion of the war to future generations who will despise us for having failed to answer the uncomfortable requirements of our time.”
As David Frum and Richard Perle say in their important new book, An End to Evil, “The war on terror cannot be won at home, but it can be lost here. It is here that the terrorists hope to inflict a devastating blow that will kill thousands, topple the U.S economy, and destroy America’s will to fight, here that they hope to win a victory that will embolden the angry millions of the Muslim world to join their jihad. Merely averting the blow is no substitute for victory. But failing to avert the blow will push us a long way to defeat.”
It is important to understand that this plan is conditional in nature. That is, it is of the nature “if you do that, we will do this.” Under this rule, nothing really need happen. But if they do destroy one or more of our cities, they have been told we will drop a nuclear bomb on Mecca, and Israel will simultaneously destroy Islamic landmarks in Jerusalem, and an international army led by America will invade Iran and Syria and possibly Saudi Arabia. To set the stage for the invasions, we must accept the fact that we can never leave Iraq. We will need it as a staging ground for some 300,000 international troops ready to simultaneously invade, at minimum, Iran and Syria, two terrorist states contiguous with Iraq. This is to insure that the terrorists understand that any attack on America or other members of the coalition will drastically reduce the territory and influence of Islam, not enlarge it, adding these two countries to Afghanistan and Iraq. The Islamic world will then view the terrorists as being responsible for the loss of almost half of the Muslim world. This would make martyrdom look more like suicide, prohibited by Islamic law. Suicide bombers do not join a terrorist movement in order to die a futile death.
The whole point is: the terrorists are free at this time to destroy our cities at will with no consequences to them. Only a plan that makes the cost to them of doing this prohibitive has any chance of deterring them. President Bush warned the world, “If anyone harbors a terrorist, they’re terrorists…Any nation that continues to support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” The above plan is justified by this Bush doctrine that a nation that harbors terrorists is a terrorist nation.
Terrorists have already caused the loss of two Muslim nations as a result of their activities. They could lose more. Furthermore, even though terrible to contemplate, under this doctrine two could conceivably now play this deadly game. What is to stop American agents from planting nuclear devices in select major Muslim cities, pre-programmed to go off if there is an attack on America, and so advise the terrorists ? The possibilities, including nuclear blackmail, are endless. The terrorists are going to have to think all this over. This is a lose-lose situation.
This plan needs to be seen in the light of the principle that the survival of the nation is always the top priority and responsibility of any government. Madison and Alexander Hamilton were unequivocal that the authority of the executive to ensure the security of the nation must take precedence over all other concerns.
And the world must end its illusions about Islam. It is one of the greatest tragedies to ever hit mankind. As the great Middle East scholar Sir William Muir wrote in 1856 in his 4-volume, Life of Muhammad, “The sword of Muhammad and the Koran, are the most stubborn enemies of Civilization, Liberty, and Truth which the world has ever known.”
This article may be reproduced in any form.
Founder/President, V.V.A.R.
Phone: 785-312-9303
Return to Magruder Articles Index
Website Design Courtesy of Annette R. Hall, http://www.i-served.com