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.
Director of Counseling and Research – University of N.D.
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)
MAGRUDER, IN PROTEST AT CONFERENCE THURSDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2006, AT DOLE INSTITUTE OF POLITICS, UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS, SAYS MEDIA RISKING NATIONAL DISASTER BY SUPPRESSING TALK ABOUT DETERRENCE
SAYS POPE STATEMENT EMBOLDENS THOSE WHO HAVE LONG WARNED OF RELATION OF TERRORISM TO ISLAM
SAYS”BIASED LIBERAL MEDIA” (GOLDBERG) MUST END SUPPRESSION OF VIEWS IN CLIMATE OF “NEW DIRECTIONS”
|
“I support your efforts to awaken the West to the dangers presented by Islam. It is all too clear that war has been declared along with the religious ‘justifications’ and that western leaders refuse to acknowledge that fact.”
Peter Gadiel President 9/11
Families
|
|
“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.”
Mr. 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
|
Leonard Magruder, President of Vietnam Veterans for Academic Reform, will hand out his latest article calling for, and proposing, a plan to deter against nuclear attack on American cities to national reporters, pollsters, and political strategists attending a conference at the Dole Institute of Politics at the University of Kansas, 1:30 p.m., Thursday, December 7, 2006. He said that widespread distribution of a series of recent articles from his organization on the need for a plan to protect America had been suppressed by the mainstream media. The only coverage he was aware of, he said, were two interviews with him on radio stations in Colorado and Florida, and publication by one newspaper, The North Carolina Conservative.
Mr. Magruder is a member of a select group of strategists, including colonels and generals, (and terrorism expert Brigette Gabriel) in the Forum at WMDterror.com. His latest article, Deterrence Now, and one on how the media lied about the Tet Offensive, with implications for coverage of the War on Terror, can be seen at that site, also v-v-a-r.org.
Mr. Magruder said he was sending out a special appeal to Vietnam vet organizations across the nation to find ways to raise the deterrence issue in their hometown media. During the 2004 election 32 veteran groups responded to his call for data on how vets viewed the candidacy of John Kerry. The results showed that 80% of the vets, a sample of some 6,000, were planning to vote against Kerry in a clear repudiation of the views of anti-war protestors of the 60’s. The mainstream media, which clearly campaigned for Kerry, suppressed the news, with the exception of one article released by United Press International. This data may be seen at v-v-a-r.org.
Said Mr. Magruder today, “Once again, we find a way to bypass the blackout of ideas by The Lawrence Journal-World and the University Daily Kansan in liberal Lawrence, with all the fog that goes with that label.”
-----------------------
Toying With the Abyss
by Leonard Magruder
December 5, 2006
Just recently, an al-Qaeda field commander in Afghanistan called for Muslims to leave the U.S. , particularly the cities of Washington and New York. Some reports suggest that this call is a warning about a potential nuclear attack on the U.S. Which raises the most serious question facing America: Does al-Qaeda possess nuclear weapons which they plan to use on America?
Many think it does.
Before the election there was a great controversy over an ad being run on TV by the Republican National Committee. It showed a picture of Osama bin Laden and quoted some of his terrorist threats, ending with the statement, “These are the stakes.” The response was hundreds of items calling this a Republican “scare” tactic.
Anyone not scared is asleep in the fog of media and university multiculturalism. Following is why the Republican ad was correct in focusing on terrorism as the number one issue confronting America, why there is good reason to be fearful, and a proposal on how to deter the terrorists from attacking America.
THE DANGER
Here are some details on the danger from a recent interview with Dr. Paul L. Williams, counter-terrorism expert and author of Osama’s Revenge: THE NEXT 9/11 : What the Media and the Government Haven't Told You. Williams was one of a number of counter-terrorist experts who spoke at the recent Symposium on Terror sponsored by AmericasTruthForum.com, boycotted by the media.
Williams:
“The danger is very real. Accounts of the al Qaeda nukes first appeared in such reputable newspapers as The Jerusalem Report and The London Times, and Arabic magazines, including al-Watan al-Arabi and al-Majallah. These sources verified from British, Israeli, and Russian intelligence sources that bin Laden had purchased tactical nuclear weapons from the Chechen Mafia in 1996. In subsequent years, the foreign press and intelligence sources, including the CIA, have been able to verify additional sales of off-the-shelf nukes and nuclear materials (highly enriched uranium and plutonium) from elements of the former Soviet Union to al-Qaeda. The sellers included not only the Chechens but also the Russian Mafia and black-market arms-dealers from the Ukraine. But these sales are not the scary part. That comes from the ties between bin Laden and Dr. A. Q. Khan and the fact that over 20 nuclear scientists and technicians from Khan’s research laboratories in Pakistan worked with al-Qaeda on a regular basis to maintain and modify the weapons that had been purchased and to develop other weapons, including highly portable suitcase nukes. Dr. Mahmood and Dr. Majeed, two of the leading officials at the Khan facility, confessed to CIA and ISI interrogators that they participated in al-Qaeda’s nuclear projects. Before leaving office, Attorney General John Ashcroft and Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge both voiced the belief that al-Qaeda’s plan to nuke cities throughout the U.S., ‘American Hiroshima’, soon might come to fruition. From the academic community, Dr. Graham Allison, director of Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and author of ‘Nuclear Terrorism’, the basis of a CNN Special, said: ‘Is nuclear mega-terrorism inevitable? Is the worst yet to come?’ My answer: Bet on it. ‘Yes.’”
The thing to be worried about is how many Muslims are “moderates”, and how many are inclined to support or engage in violence. William J. Bennett, in one of the first books to comment on the developing crisis, Why We Fight: Moral Claity and the War on Terrorism, may have thrown useful light on this question.
“We have been well cautioned against confusing a fringe movement, the Islamic terrorists, with the center, Islam itself, lest we commit the intellectual and moral crime of ‘scapegoating’ a whole religion that, like other great religions, stands only for comity and peace. There is, however, a more honest and less blinkered course. Let us grant that extreme tendencies and indeed entire heresies can arise that occlude more balanced interpretations of the center. The question then becomes one of assessing how much influence such tendencies exert over the center, and whether the center fights back.”
Since Bennett wrote these words, the question as to whether the center is fighting back has become problematic. At the present time statements such as the following suggest that it is not going to, at least not very effectively:
In their new book, An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror, analysts David Frum and Richard Perle said:
“The terrorists kill and will accept death for a cause with which no accommodation is possible. That cause is militant Islam. Moreover, these beliefs are not really confined to a radical fringe, but infect even ordinary Muslims. Even though it is comforting to deny it, all the available evidence indicates that militant Islam commands wide support , and even wider sympathy, among Muslims worldwide, including Muslim minorities in the West. The result is an unlimited threat to dominate the world through Jihad.”
The noted Israeli strategist Shmuel Bar says the same, “Insofar as religious establishments in most of the Arabian peninsula, in Iran, and in much of Egypt and North Africa are concerned, the radical ideology does not represent a marginal and extremist perversion of Islam but rather a genuine and increasingly mainstream interpretation. Even after 9-11, the sermons broadcast from Mecca cannot be easily distinguished from those of al- Qaeda.”
Sam Harris in his New York Times #1 bestseller, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, is even more blunt:
“We are at war with Islam. It may not serve our immediate foreign policy objectives for our political leaders to openly acknowledge this fact, but it is unambiguously the truth. It is not true that we are at war with an otherwise ‘peaceful religion’ that has been ‘hijacked’ by extremists. We are at war with precisely the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran, and further elaborated in the ‘hadith’ which recounts the saying and actions of the Prophet.”
Said Tony Blankley, editor of The Washington Times, “Most of the world today is not only in denial concerning the truly appalling likely consequences of the rise of radical Islam, it often refuses to even accept unambiguous evidence of its existence. The nation cannot design a rational response to the danger if the nature and extent of the danger is not identified, widely reported and comprehended. The public has the right and the vital need to have these events of our time fully and fairly described and reported.”
It is no accident that Kansas University Professor of Anthropology Felix Moos said recently on the front page of the local paper, “I find at KU that people are oblivious to the fact that we are at war.” The ratio of Democrats to Republicans on faculties across the nation is roughly 10 to 1 and it is they that are keeping communities totally in the dark about the danger from Islam.
DETERRENCE
The danger is real, the media is hiding it, and the political agenda they are pushing is moving the nation towards the abyss. The need for Congress, or the military, to develop a plan to deter the disaster suggested by the Republican ad is the nation’s top priority.
A plan of deterrence can be based both on the warning by President Bush that “whoever harbors terrorists is a hostile nation,” and the statement in the new U.S. nuclear doctrine, Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations - Joint Publications 3-12 that, “Here deterrence may be directed at states that support their efforts as well as the terrorist organization itself.” We also note, “Deterrence, even based on the threat of massive destruction, may fail and the United States must be prepared to use nuclear weapons if necessary.” Terrorists don’t just live in caves in Pakistan. There are huge terrorist enclaves, for example, in Syria, Palestine, Iran, Lebanon, Indonesia, and many other Muslim countries making these enclaves, and in some case entire nations, potential targets in any plan of mutually assured destruction.
ELEMENTS OF A PLAN
No nation can tolerate threats such as this nation has received from Islamics, especially those to its children (bin Laden says he has permission from the clerics to kill ten million Americans, 2 million of them children), without attempting to deter through a warning of retaliation. The goal of retaliation would be to demoralize the radical element into abandoning their dream of ‘jihad’. If they strike at us, retaliation must be instantaneous and catastrophic, many times the force directed at us.
There is some question as to whether terrorists can be deterred under any circumstances. Many Muslims argue that there is no limit to aggression, and their neighbors should be willing to be sacrificed for the cause. Thus some Iranian leaders have been known to say they would be willing to sacrifice Tehran for the “honor” of destroying Israel. But Shmuel Bar, in his book on fatwas, Warrant for Terror: The Fatwas of Radical Islam, shows that there are in fact restraints on jihad:
“Muslims must not embark on jihad unless they have a strong base and are powerful: the Prophet himself did not embark on jihad while he was weak, waiting until he was strong and had enough supporters. Also, Jihad must be in line with Muslims’ general interests (maslahah) and should not cause harm to them or to the cause of spreading Islam. There is great latitude in forgoing Jihad.
“The Koran is ambivalent on the issue of retreating in the face of superior enemy forces. At first it forbids it entirely, then later allows retreat in the face of a tenfold superiority of the enemy and, ultimately, it allows retreat in the face of a two-to-one superiority.”
“Ten times as large” is what leads to the “rule of ten” in our Plan, below.
Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily gave an excellent summary of this whole issue in December 2004:
“What would be the U.S. response to a nuclear 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. We cannot afford to put off this discussion until it happens. It will be too late. …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?”
There is no national debate on deterrence. We have never heard the media mention the word. We have been trying to raise the issue ever since our first article on the subject on July 31, 2003. And we have sat through documentary after documentary on CNN on violent attacks on the free world by Muslims without one word about the underlying ideology. The Republican ad was an attempt to refocus the nation on the real issue. If Democrats can’t face this issue, then they should have no major role in running the country.
Also, nowhere have we seen any mention of what the impact on the troops in Iraq would be if a nuclear bomb went off in America. Would there not be a huge outcry to go home to protect families? The conjunction between our troops in Iraq and the possibility of a nuclear attack on an American city has so far never been discussed. It could be the basis of an argument for bringing the troops home immediately. These things need to be thought out now.
THE PLAN
1) American bombers will take off continuously, night and day, headed for unspecified Muslim nations, loaded with conventional and nuclear bombs. If nothing happens back in the U.S., they then turn around at a designated point and return home. This is the old “fail- safe” strategy of the Cold War era. If there is a terrorist attack on America it could range from a shopping mall to an entire city. The Pentagon will already have mapped out numerous equivalent targets in those Muslim nations that harbor terrorists and the bombers will rain destruction on a selected target which will be equivalent to ten times the destruction in the U.S. This rule of ten insures that the terrorists must know in advance that their attacks will be responded to with massive overkill. The President announces this plan to the world. If this strikes some as excessive, remember, this does not involve a preemptive strike. It would happen only after the nuclear destruction of say, Washington. Furthermore, it is conditional, of the nature “If you do that - we will do this.” Ideally nothing need happen.
2) The second part of the plan is for the free world to explore the issue of terrorism. That is, every day, using all forms of communication, TV, lectures, radio, documentaries, etc., show the verses of the Koran advocating violence, point out the hypocrisy, tell of the dark history of Islam, the oppression of women, and the current goals of Islamic jihad, that is, to dominate the world either by conversion, slavery, or slaughter. And show Muslims there is another way to get to heaven besides murdering your fellow man.
CONFRONTING ISLAM
The West needs to come right out and tell the Muslim world:
“Look, we think your religion is not only making you sick, but leading the world to disaster. It is absurd to call the West, with the longest history about, and faith in, God, ‘infidels’. We have by far a greater history of philosophy and theology than you do. Your intuition about God may be correct, but your descriptions about Him in the Koran are distinctly sub-moral and a very great threat to mankind. Unless you do something about this a war between civilizations is absolutely inevitable. Like the Pope has suggested, we need to get together and talk about this, now.
“The Koran, which rests on the extremely problematic idea that it was received straight from God through the angel Gabriel, is bringing the world to the brink of utter disaster.
“If we do not sit down and talk about this, we may lose a city, we may have to walk without the oil, but you will lose everything. You don’t have us surrounded. We, with our nuclear submarines alone, have you surrounded. And no one fears a Muslim army. It is the sneak attack with a nuclear weapon the world fears. How to stop this is what haunts the world.
“You must come to your senses before there is an unparalleled world catastrophe. When you destroyed those two towers you lost two countries. If you attack again you certainly must know that the response will be unimaginable. We will easily out-terrorize your terrorists.”
Talk about ads. The children alone could expose the utter shamefulness of Islamic hatred for others. Produce and flood the world with short TV messages, using hundreds of children, saying:
1) “Osama, why do you want to kill all the little American children?”
2) “We believe in God, too, but He never asked us to kill anyone.”
3) “We don’t think killing us will get you to heaven.”
4) “We don’t want your religion; we have our own.”
5) “Why do you want to kill our mommies and daddies?”
***
This article may be reproduced in any form. Copy this article, distribute, add us as a link.
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.