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
Media Endangering National Security
September 21, 2005
By Leonard Magruder
“Some may think the article below is very radical—I am not one of them—we need to act now and let the enemy know what the stakes are... I would welcome your comments.”
Giles Crider
Chief of Staff
Center for Domestic Preparedness
Department of Homeland Security
***
“Dear Leonard:
Until Islam can bring itself to stop rationalizing terrorist attacks and start repudiating people from its ranks who do, this war will continue.
Sincerely,
Tom Tancredo
Member of Congress”
***
President of Vietnam vet group appeals to Crider to distribute new article to Homeland Security, breaking the media boycott of the issue of nuclear retaliation.
Also calls on vets to demand the media cover the upcoming Symposium exposing Islam as the real cause of terrorism.
While egging the nation on to blame lack of preparedness for Kristina on Bush and racism, the mainstream media continues to suppress the much larger issue of preparedness against nuclear attack.
Editors at The Lawrence Journal-World and The University Daily Kansan led the pack in Kansas recently in cutting off any discussion of the catastrophic danger to America that most experts increasingly say has its true roots in Islam. Such tactics are widespread in the media. WorldNetDaily of Aug. 16 tells of the media cover-up of a symposium addressing the threat of Islamic terrorism. Jeff Epstein, organizer of the symposium, “The Radical Islamist Threat to World Peace and National Security,” said the symposium would proceed “in spite of massive road blocks thrown in the path by the media.” Said Epstein, “Naive ideologues in the media believe Islamist ‘freedom fighters’ are lashing out at us because of our ‘decadent’ way of life. This is political correctness gone dangerously mad at a time when we are confronting the prospect that thousands of Islamists are committed to bringing death and destruction to millions of innocents on our soil.”
One who will speak at the symposium is the noted Middle East expert Robert Spencer who said, “I intend to challenge media bias head-on by exploding the common ‘politically correct’ notions that American injustice and economic inequalities are the causes of terrorism, not any imperative derived from Islam. I will show how ‘ jihad ‘ violence, in the words of terrorist themselves, gains its impetus from core elements of Islamic thought, which mandates warfare against unbelievers.”
V.V.A.R. is asking all veterans to call the media demanding that they cover this symposium to help Americans understand the true threat, which is Islam.
In addition, talk-show host Michael Graham was suspended without pay on Thursday, July 28, by ABC Disney following threats by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), (itself known to have connections with terrorist groups) over his comments on-air regarding the connection between Islam and terrorism. “Islam is at war with America. The problem is not extremism. The problem is Islam. Islam is a terrorist organization.”
CBS/Infinity Radio also will not mention the symposium, refusing to run an ad, saying it is too “controversial.”
Said Spencer, “The fact they found it too controversial and ‘emotion-arousing is just another sign of the abysmal state of public discourse about Islam and terrorism. What they are doing is making sure the American people are not exposed to any serious investigation of the genuine root causes of Islamic terrorism. If CBS and CAIR get their way, the American people will be denied the ability to act in the interest of their own self-preservation.”
They’re doing it again! This is what we said in an article on the media and the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam era (see Vietnam and the Media at v-v-a-r.org):
On occasion, as in the case of the Vietnam War, the university and the media act as an unelected counter-government, certain that they only know what is best for the nation. The New York media, recognizing an opportunity to manipulate the news to effectively impose its view of the war on the American people now created, and deliberately sustained, an image of “disaster,” even in the face of incoming battlefield reports that contradicted that image.
The liberal media robbed the United States government and the American people of the ability to make critical judgments about their most vital security interests in a time of war.
The series of articles by Mr. Magruder, President of Vietnam Veterans for Academic Reform, that have been banned by Kansas editors, deal with the same issue raised by Congressman Tom Tancredo involving a plan for retaliation including the possibility of the nuclear destruction of Mecca. What Tancredo said in a radio interview is that, to hopefully deter Islamics from detonating a nuclear device in one or more American cities, they could be told beforehand that we would respond by destroying holy sites such as Mecca.
Two things are recognized in the suggestion of Mecca as a target, although any retaliation would have to go much further than that. First, it recognizes that Islam is the true enemy and root cause of terrorism with its doctrine of “jihad,” based on the “violent verses” in the Koran. Second, it recognizes that the fact that the terrorists have no country is irrelevant, because they strike in the name of Islam, a common denominator in all Muslim countries, making all Muslin countries potential targets.
Mr. Giles Crider, an official with the Department of Homeland Security, posted our last article saying, “We need to act now and let the enemy know what the stakes are.” We call on him to also post this article. Especially for Homeland Security. These are the people we have been most trying to reach. This would be an enormous victory over the media that is trying to kill this issue.
Mr. Crile says he welcomes comments. This is an unusual opportunity for people to share their views on this crucial issue with those most responsible for the safety of our nation. E-mail him your views at Giles.Crider@dhs.gov.
Still, we failed in our efforts to raise the issue to national debate. Tancredo, however, has succeeded in raising the issue nationally, and we urge him to keep the issue alive, bring the issue to Congressional debate. The one thing we must keep from happening is the media totally burying the issue, which they are trying desperately to do as seen in the incidents we reported above.
The crucial sentence we asked in each of our nine articles on this issue since July 31, 2003, is: “We are asking the Bush Administration to tell us, and the world, what they will do to retaliate in the case of a nuclear attack on the United States.”
This is without question the most important question regarding national security that can be raised at this time, even as media and university, believing they know what is best for the country, have decided America shouldn’t be discussing the matter.
One thing that the world needs to understand is the Islamic principle that when one group of Muslims assumes responsibility for jihad warfare, as the terrorists have, the rest of the Muslim community is relieved of the religious duty of warfare, even while supporting the effort. If radical Muslims say they are acting on behalf of all Islam, which they do, Islamic tradition confirms that they do. This explains to the world two important things. Why the rest of the Islamic world did not condemn 9/11, and the fact that almost all Muslims support terrorism, without the need to act in that support. This, however, does not exempt them from any plan of retaliation.
There is a parallel in the powerful case made by Daniel Goldhagen of Harvard in his brilliant study, “Hitler’s Willing Executioners,” which describes the centuries of animosity of Christians against Jews in Europe which never, however, reached the level of considering extermination. But, for reasons which he details, the level of hostility grew significantly after World War l. Then Hitler came along and said, “I will do it for you.” And while most of the German population did not want to participate in the grisly details, far too many supported the idea, with millions ending up as “collateral damage” in the extermination of the Third Reich. So also will millions of “moderates” in Muslim lands end up as “collateral damage” if they cannot stop the madness of their co-religionists.
In this analysis we have the solution for justification of retaliating against the entire Muslim world if the terrorists use a nuclear weapon on American soil. Tancredo has it right when he suggests that since “moderate” Muslims rationalize terrorism, everyone in the Muslim world would, in effect, be morally responsible for a jihadist nuclear attack on America, and therefore the retaliatory destruction of Muslim cities would be justified.
Actually it makes no difference. If there is a nuclear attack on the U.S., there will be no stopping the outcry for retaliation, and justification will get lost in the general belief that Islam, and therefore Muslim countries, are to blame.
The media and the university have kept us from correctly identifying the enemy (just as they told us the Viet Cong, not the North Vietnamese, was the enemy).
What academia and the media are trying to hide is that the violence we are seeing has its roots, not in “fundamentalist extremism,” all Islam is fundamentalist, but in the teachings of orthodox Islam itself. Osama bin Laden could not have made this more clear when he said in December of 2001, “This war is fundamentally religious. Under no circumstances should we forget this enmity between us and the infidels. The enmity is based on creed [Islam].”
We don’t tell the enemy what their motives are. That’s media stupidity. The enemy tells us. This may be the first time in history when an enemy has declared a war in behalf of a particular ideology and the other side refuses to acknowledge that fact.
Al-Qaeda leaders said not long ago, “We announce the good news for Muslims in the world that the strike of the black wind of death, the expected strike against America, is now in its final stages - 90 percent ready- and it is coming soon. A huge strike will take place…the number of ‘infidels’ expected to be killed in the attack exceeds 100,000. Americans should prepare their coffins, hospitals, and graves.”
Why “good news for Muslims in the world”? Because they know they have the support of most of the Muslim world.
There is no doubt that this refers to a nuclear attack. How would that happen? Simple. They plant nuclear bombs, which they are almost certain to have, in New York, Washington, Chicago, and Los Angeles. They detonate one, then announce they will detonate the others unless we leave Afghanistan and Iraq and abandon Israel. Other scenarios, of course, are possible.
The plans for a devastating nuclear attack on the U.S. have been under development for more than a decade. It is designed as a final deadly blow of defeat to the U.S. Something we cannot recover from. That is why any threat of a retaliation must, in some form, involve almost the entire Islamic world. It must be catastrophic, many times what hits us. We could conceivably recover. But we must make certain that Islam never recovers. That way freedom, not tyranny, would reign in any surviving world.
While terrorists will sacrifice their lives to enter Paradise and get their hands on those 72 virgins (the sexual pathology at the heart of Islam), it must be for a cause, otherwise it is suicide, prohibited by Islam. In this case the cause is the world-wide expansion of Islam through “ jihad.” If they are told beforehand that their sacrifice will mean catastrophic destruction in Muslim lands, massively diminishing the influence of Islam, this would make their sacrifices meaningless. Especially important is the destruction of all holy sites, the symbols of Islam, which is the root cause of terrorism. The destruction of Mecca, Medina, and all major mosques would be meant to demoralize the followers of Islam, disavow them of their dreams of conquest, just as Hiroshima showed the Japanese that their emperor-god, Hirohito, could not protect them.
At the same time, the civilized world needs to start an immediate, world-wide exposé through its enormous communication resources of the horrors at the heart of the Koran, and a detailed look at the life of Mohammad. Already the world has begun studying the Koran. It can see the hate-filled verses of violence that Muslims are exposed to, and which are fueling the terrorist movement. And it has begun to speak out against it. No other scriptures of the world contain anything remotely like these verses of the Koran, verses that show intolerance of, and incite violence against, non-Muslims and other religions. The message of the civilized world to Islam is either disavow these verses, disband, or be destroyed. The civilized world will never trust Islam as long as it keeps these verses up its sleeve.
Sura (verse numbers) Koran- examples:
5.51 O you who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for friends, they are friends one to another. He among you who takes them for friends is one of them.
9.5 Slay the idolators wherever you find them...lie in ambush everywhere for them.
98.6 The unbelievers among the People of the Book, Christian and Jews, and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of creatures.
5.82 Indeed you will surely find that the most vehement of men in enmity to those who believe are the Jews and the polytheists.(Christians)
5.60 God has cursed the Jews, transforming them into apes and swine. and those who serve the devil..
5.33 Those who make war against Allah and his Apostle shall be put to death or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides.
9:5 Kill those who join other gods with God (the Trinity, polytheism))wherever you may find them.
8:12 I will instill terror into the hearts of the Infidels, strike off the heads then, and strike off from them every fingertip.
2:216 Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you may dislike it.
A National Geographic series on terrorism last week showed clerics in mosques all over America preaching “death to America” even before 9/11. One of them was screaming, “blood must flow, there must be widows, there must be orphans!” This goes on in mosques all over the world. It is not just terrorists talking. It is Islam talking.
The Muslim people are victims. They need to be delivered from this oppressive, violent, morally bankrupt religion.
It is important to remember that all threats of retaliation are conditional in nature. That is, they are 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 will have been told we will retaliate with catastrophic force.
A national dialogue on this is all that Tancredo and V.V.A.R. are asking.
IMPORTANT UPDATE! The possibility of a stunning new change of policy with promise of turning into the doctrine that Tancredo and V.V.A.R. have been proposing.
Excerpt from The Washington Times of September 12, 2005:
WASHINGTON (Associated Press) -- A Pentagon planning document being updated to reflect the doctrine of pre-emption declared by President Bush in 2002 envisions the use of nuclear weapons to deter terrorists from using weapons of mass destruction against the United States or its allies…
A Pentagon spokesman said Saturday evening that Navy Cmdr. Dawn Cutler, a public affairs officer for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has issued a statement saying the draft is still being circulated among the various services, field commanders, Pentagon lawyers and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s office. Its existence was initially reported by The Washington Post…
…It says “deterrence of potential adversary WMD use requires the potential adversary leadership to believe the United States has both the ability and will to pre-empt or retaliate promptly with responses that are credible and effective.
It says, “this will be particularly difficult with nonstate (non-government) actors who employ or attempt to gain use of WMD. Here, deterrence may be directed at states that support their efforts as well as the terrorist organization itself.
However, the continuing proliferation of WMD along with the means to deliver them increases the probability that someday a state/nonstate actor nation/terrorist may, through miscalculation or by deliberate choice, use those weapons. In such cases, deterrence, even based on the threat of massive destruction, may fail and the United States must be prepared to use nuclear weapons if necessary.”
What this says is that deterrence, that is, the threat of retaliation, may be directed at states that support terrorists (which could include states such as Syria and Iran) and that if that fails the U.S. will retaliate with nuclear weapons. This is essentially what we and Tancredo have been proposing. Even though this is apparently still in the draft stage, we need to watch and see how the mainstream newspapers and TV national news organizations handle this new development. As a development crucial to national security, and as an Associated Press release, this, and especially any updates, should be appearing in the newspapers, but is not. It appears that the whole issue is being buried.
Being a matter of extreme national importance, we urge everyone to call or write your local newspaper and inquire into any omission, or e-mail your views on the matter to Mr. Crile and/or the Department of Defense. All America should be urging adoption of this new policy.
So far we have seen no mention of it in our own local papers. We may be seeing the cover-up discussed above, right before our eyes. In that case we must call for an immediate crisis investigation by Congress as to why the university and the media are not only misleading the American people as to the enemy, but refusing to mention any plan to strengthen our security.
***
LATE FLASH! One of our Advisors says he heard on NPR that the policy has been adopted. Still, we can find no mention of such an important breakthrough in the major newspapers, going back six days, in the library. If true, this should be front-page headlines in newspapers all over the world. If we find out it is true we have a list of the leading newspapers throughout the world, and will send them the news.
Is our media hiding this from the Muslim world for fear of appearing “insensitive”?
This article may be reproduced in any form. Copy this article, distribute, add us as a link.
(note: We apologize to Lawrence Auster for misquotes made in summarizing one of his articles in Operation Shield America. We have made corrections.)
Founder/President, V.V.A.R.
Phone: 785-312-9303
Website design and management courtesy of Annette R. Hall. Hosted by www.i-served.com.