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

 

(Vietnam vet contact: General Carl Schneider (ret.) Korea, Vietnam

dukesch@aol.com, 480-595-7668)

 

 

SUPPORT FOR DOCTRINE OF MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION (MAD) GROWING.

REPORT SAYS THE ISSUE NOW BEING DISCUSSED IN WASHINGTON.

 

U.S.A. Today, January 20, 2005 – “‘Dirty’ Bomb Tip Triggers FBI Manhunt”

“The FBI said an uncorroborated terrorist threat in Boston involved a possible ‘dirty bomb’. A ‘dirty bomb’ uses conventional explosives to spread radioactive material.”

 

TIME magazine - November 22, 2004

“A key al-Qaeda operative seized in Pakistan recently offered an alarming account of the group’s plans to target the U.S. with weapons of mass destruction, senior U.S. security officials tell TIME. Sharif al-Masri told his interrogators of ‘al-Qaeda’s interest in moving nuclear materials from Europe to either the U.S. or Mexico,’ according to a report circulating among U.S. government officials.”

 

We report these two items because they could be the first of any number of such scares we face in the future, unless we come up with a plan to deter the terrorists permanently, which is the subject of our article. In it we put together excerpts from writings, including or own, that have appeared recently on the subject of the need to develop a plan similar to that of the Cold War era, Mutually Assured Destruction, involving the threat of massive retaliation in case of any attack on America. At present we have no such plan. Although there are reports that such a plan is being considered at the highest level in Washington.

 

Below is an article that just appeared, suggesting that the issue we first raised on July 31, 2003 in our article, “Invasion Plan,” about Mutually Assured Destruction is being discussed in the halls of power in Washington. The article states that such a plan may already be in place. We do not know if this is true. Following that are excerpts from articles we sent out on the issue, and excerpts from recent similar proposals from Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily and author J. Patrick Griffin.

 

U.S. threatens to vaporize Mecca?

Intelligence expert says nuke option is reason bin Laden has been quiet

Posted: January 7, 2005, WorldNetDaily.com

 

“Why hasn’t Osama bin Laden’s terror network executed an attack on U.S. soil since 9-11? Simple, says Dr. Jack Wheeler, creator of an acclaimed intelligence website. The U.S. has threatened to nuke the Muslim holy city of Mecca should the terror leader strike America again…Writes Wheeler in his members-only column, ‘…It’s whispered among Capitol Hill staffers on the intel and armed services committees; White House NSC (National Security Council) members clam up tight if you begin to hint at it; and State Department neo-cons love to give their liberal counterparts cardiac arrhythmia by elliptically conversing about it in their presence. The whispers and hints and ellipses are getting louder now because the rumor explains the inexplicable: Why hasn’t there been a repeat of 9-11? How can it be that after this unimaginable tragedy and Osama’s constant threats of another, we have gone over three years without a single terrorist attack on American soil?…Completely obliterating the terrorists’ holiest of holies, rendering what is for them the world’s most sacred spot a radioactive hole in the ground is retribution of biblical proportions - and those are the only proportions that will do the job…Part of Bush’s rationale for invading Afghanistan and Iraq - obviously never expressed publicly -was to convince Osama that his threat to nuke Mecca was real.’”

 

What is proposed in the above article is very similar to the proposal by J. Patrick Griffin in his recent book, America’s Answer, which we discussed on January 13, 2004, in our article, Deterrence Momentum, as follows:

 

STUDENT ORGANIZATION AT UNIV. OF KANSAS CALLS FOR NATIONAL DEBATE ON PLAN TO DETER TERRORISTS

 

Leonard Magruder, President of Vietnam Veterans for Academic Reform, speaking for his student group at the University 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. He and his student group are urging national debate on a plan of mutually assured destruction, and momentum for such is building, even as time is running out and threats of massive destruction by terrorists continue. 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 this second, similar proposal. An excerpt:

 

“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. An attack with a weapon of mass destruction by Islamic terrorists against America would forfeit the existence of what is most sacred to the Islamic terrorists, Mecca, by nuclear attack. 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 dismantle their psychology at its source, nothing we do can threaten the religiously 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.”

 

Excerpt from our last article, They Are Going to Kill the White House, sent out on December 11, 2004 follows. Posted on the V.V.A.R. web site as Nuclear Terror – V.V.A.R, this article was the basis of recent interviews with Mr. Magruder on American Freedom Radio (POW/MIA), and the Geoff Metcalf National Radio Show.

 

“Once you understand that the terrorists have but one motive, to radicalize all Muslim nations into a monolithic bloc to either convert, enslave, or slaughter the rest of the world, then the only choice is to try to survive. But the step by step, or ‘one terrorist at a time’ approach is limited. There are a minimum of 70,00 terrorists in cells around the world waiting to strike. While we are eliminating one, the others can be planting nuclear devices in our cities. The only solution is some variant of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), the solution by which we kept Communist Russia at bay for 50 years.

 

“If we cannot attack the terrorists because they have no country, leaving us helpless, and them immune, then to stop them we must attack the nations who harbor them and often aid them. The Bush doctrine comes into play here. ‘Whoever aids terrorists is a terrorist nation.’ This will provide the necessary two parts for a strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction - our lands, their lands. We can attack using nuclear or conventional forces. Massive bombing raids on known and suspected terrorist areas in all Muslim lands, using our most powerful conventional bombs would be our choice. Once the world and especially all terrorist groups understand that we will not accept the destruction of a single American city, then it absolutely follows that we are going to have to threaten to destroy one or more Muslim countries, or parts of countries, to provide us with leverage in a strategy of mutually assured destruction. The problem, of course, is that some of these Muslim nations provide the oil that fuels our highly industrial nation. Also, some Muslim nations, like Iran, have strong dissident movements that must be protected. This will require careful selectivity in working out such a plan. But collectively, the bombing should be the equivalent of a catastrophic multi-nuclear attack on the Muslim world.

 

“Whatever the means, what we are calling for is for our government to work out, and announce to the world, a plan of retaliation that will insure that none of the goals of al Qaeda can be achieved without mutually assured destruction that will be blamed on them, and that this will remain in place over the years until international forces complete the destruction of all terrorist cells. If we have to live in fear, then they will have to live in fear. If we are destroyed, they will be destroyed.”

 

Another article from WorldNetDaily:

 

Who is going to die?

by Joseph Farah,

posted December 1, 2004, WorldNetDaily.com

 

“Yossef Bodansky, the former director of the U.S. Congressional Task Force on Terrorism…says the United States faces an ‘inevitable’ al-Qaida attack with weapons of mass destruction. What would be the U.S. response to such an attack? Now is the time to think about the unthinkable. Contingency plans need to be made. And those plans need to be known to the whole world to serve as a deterrent against such an attack. For more than 40 years, the idea of mutually assured destruction was enough to prevent the Soviet Union from launching a nuclear attack against the United States…It’s time for a clear-cut plan of retribution to protect the people of the United States from a horrific attack…We cannot afford to put off this discussion until it happens. It will be too late…The Islamist world and its allies need to know there will be an unprecedented nuclear response to any attack on the United States with weapons of mass destruction. We don’t need to be specific about which major cities and installations will be vaporized. But it needs to be clear that the response will be overwhelming…By having this national debate now and putting the world on notice, we can give the terrorists something to think about. Do they really want to see their cities vaporized? Do they really want to see their religious centers destroyed? Do they really want to see adherents to their ideology and their faith killed in massive numbers as a direct result of their actions?”

 

Commentary:

 

Osama bin Laden in his “Declaration of War” on February 23, 1998, wrote, “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 welfare, sink their ships, and kill them on land, sea, and air.”

 

Why America?

 

“America is the reason for all oppression, injustice, licentiousness, or suppression that is the Muslim’s lot. It stands behind all the disasters that were caused and are still being caused to the Muslims, it is immersed in the blood of Muslims and cannot hide this. We have the right to kill four million Americans - two million of them children.”- Osama bin Laden

 

America rejects these charges as the monstrous lies of just another murderous psychopathic victim of the Koran. A right to murder two million of our children? We welcome the excuse to hurl that back in their teeth, to eliminate the terrorists in a sea of fire. A more depraved statement is not imaginable. We agree with Ibn Warraq, who put his life on the line to tell the truth about Islam in, Why I Am Not a Muslim.

 

“Islam is a totalitarian ideology that aims to control the religious, social and political life of mankind in all its aspects. And I mean Islam. I do not accept some spurious distinction between Islam and Islamic ‘fundamentalism’, or ‘Islamic terrorists.’ The terrorists that planted bombs in Madrid on March 11, 2004, and those responsible for the deaths of 3000 people in New York on Sept. 11, and the Ayatollahs of Iran, were and are all acting canonically. Their actions reflect the teachings of Islam, whether found in the Koran, in the acts and teachings of the Prophet Mohammed, or in the Islamic law (Sharia) based on them.”

 

We must end the delusion in the West that the terrorists are a breed apart from the rest of the Muslim world. They are the direct product of Islamic theology, and the whole Muslim world is now predisposed in that direction.

 

Islam rests on the foundation, “Kill the unbelievers,” on Jihad. The world must turn its back on, and totally isolate if not totally destroy, a religion as monstrous as this. This is the horror at the heart of Islam that they are going to have to change, although we know the mullahs are too cowardly to do it, causing Indonesian leaders to deprive aid to starving child victims of the tsunami to avoid “unclean infidels.”. This is what caused Muslim children to dance in the streets when they heard of the murder of 3000 innocent Americans, caused Muslim clerics to nod their heads in approval. The civilized world has learned it cannot count on decent behavior from the Muslim world. It is horrified, repulsed by the Islamic preoccupation with decapitation and the filming of it, with the mutilation of corpses, with the enticement of children into suicide bombings, with “honor killings” of their own daughters, or events like the horrifying betrayal and slaughter of the British woman Margaret Hassan, the director of CARE in Iraq who worked for decades providing food, medicine and humanitarian aid to the poor people of Iraq. The civilized world cannot comprehend such an attack on goodness.

 

Islam poses an enormous threat to the future of mankind and all the armies and all the nuclear arsenals of the civilized world must now be arrayed in throwing up a shield to protect itself from this disease. Islamic aggressors must not be allowed to take one step further without risking everything. True, there will be massive collateral damage, just as there was massive collateral damage to multitudes that did not approve of tyranny when Dresden and Hiroshima were bombed. But this was necessary to end the evil. And it is possible that the Muslim world does have grievances. But as Benjamin Netanyahu wrote,” We must 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. Stop terrorism or face destruction. This is the great mission that now stands before the free world.”

 

America is not going to give up New York or Washington, two of the most magnificent, civilized, cities in the world. Not to mention the lives involved. Or any other of our cities for that matter. The Muslim world better understand, and now, that we will respond to that with unimaginable destruction of their lands. It is time for America to seriously think about the awesome danger we face, and focus on coming up with a threat of retaliation. We are being diverted from doing this by the multiculturalist fog spread by the media and the university. We must learn to just ignore their fantasy interpretation of the crisis.

 

All of the following seven items are either from news stories or two new books by counter-terrorist experts, Osama’s Revenge: the next 9/11, by Paul Williams, and Nuclear Terrorism, by Graham Allison. Although both offer documentation, we need more information on these matters because collectively they suggest that the nuclear threat is very close, which means we must immediately formulate some plan to deter them.

 

§        On September 14, 2001, Israeli security arrested an al Qaeda operative as he attempted to enter Israel through Palestine territories at a border checkpoint at Ramallah. He was carrying a radioactive backpack bomb, a sophisticated weapon using plutonium that could have wrecked havoc throughout Israel. According to Williams, news of the nuke was conveyed to the State Department and the weapon became listed in the CIA Daily Threat Report.

 

§        On October 11, 2001, George Tenet, Director of the CIA, met with President Bush to tell him at least two nuclear suitcases had reached al Qaeda operatives in the United States. According to Williams, the news was supported by Pakistani’s ISI, the CIA, and the FBI. We would especially like to know if this is true.

 

§        In November 2001, bin Laden told Hamid Mir, editor of Dawn, a Pakistani newspaper, who appeared in a recent CNN program, “We have chemical and nuclear weapons. They are not difficult to obtain if you have contacts in Russia with other Islamist groups. They are available for $10 million and $20 million.”

 

§        On November 25, 2001, Taliban leader Omar assured BBC reporters that the nuclear destruction of the United states was well underway. “The plan is going ahead, and God willing, it is being implemented. But it is a huge undertaking, which is beyond the will and comprehension of human beings. If God’s will is with us, this will happen within a short period of time.”

 

§        November 16, 2003, Associated Press: “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.”

 

§        It is not inconceivable that al-Qaeda already has nuclear devices in, say, our four largest cities, ready to detonate them if we don’t meet their demands in a case of nuclear blackmail. The scenarios are endless.

 

§        On February 8, 2004, the London-based Arabic newspaper Al-Hayat reported bin Laden has vowed to launch a “back-breaking attack” on the United States by February, confirming an earlier message by the militant group network, “The attack will change the order of things. Americans should prepare their coffins, hospitals, and graves.”

 

§        November 15, 2004, Nuke Attack Surely Coming - Newsmax. “Former CIA agent Michael Scheuer told CBS 60 Minutes that he is convinced that bin Laden will attack the U.S. homeland with some sort of nuclear weapon of mass destruction. Scheuer, a counter-terrorist expert, is the author of the recent book on terrorism, Through Our Enemies’ Eyes.

 

As suggested by Graham Allison in his recent book Nuclear Terrorism, we do not know what is true here and what is not. But we would like to know and we think that the media and the government should be keeping us better informed on these matters. It seems to us that there is enough here to be deeply concerned about a nuclear attack on America, which makes a public discussion of a plan for deterrence a top priority. What we do know is that getting a nuclear bomb to the U.S. would not be a problem, and getting it into a major city would not be a problem. The bottom line is, if they have a nuclear device, and it could be not much larger than a suitcase, they can easily detonate it in an American city. We urge everyone reading this article to think of what they can do to help raise the issue of deterrence to national awareness. Write your congressperson, letters to the editor, talk about it on talk shows, pass this article on to others.

 

This article will go out, as they always do, to all the major newswires of America; Cox, Hearst, Reuters, United Press, Newhouse, etc. It will go out to our journalists, our academics. And they will make it disappear. No one will hear anything about it. So we should do what we did in defeating Kerry. Crank up the Internet network, spread the word, talk it up locally, tell people everywhere about the danger they are in. That is how we beat Kerry, at the grassroots level, even though the mainstream media actively campaigned for Kerry. Not just campaigned but lied for him. That is the way blue people do things.

 

This article may be reproduced in any form. Copy this article, distribute, add us as a link.

 

Leonard Magruder

Founder/President, V.V.A.R.

Phone: 785-312-9303

Magruder44@aol.com

 

Website design and management courtesy of Annette R. Hall. Hosted by www.i-served.com.

 

Top of Page