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)
Almost imperceptibly, this planet has slipped into a new, and probably terminal, space - one that concerns every nation, every person - the fact that one individual, with a nuclear weapon that fits into a suitcase, can destroy a city, and bad people and nuclear weapons are with us forever. No one is talking much about this larger theme yet, but these facts must soon become the only problem to engage the greatest minds on earth. Meanwhile, the immediate threat to mankind from this conjunction is not from another government, but from a religion - Islam. We must end the cover-up of this fact by the media and the university and immediately put in place a plan to protect America from attack.
OPERATION SHIELD AMERICA
by Leonard Magruder
July 15, 2005
FROM JOSEPH FARAH'S G2 ONLINE INTELLIGENCE BULLETIN
Al-Qaida nukes already in U.S.
WASHINGTON - As London recovers from the latest deadly al-Qaida attack that killed at least 50, top U.S. government officials are contemplating what they consider to be an inevitable and much bigger assault on America - one likely to kill millions, destroy the economy and fundamentally alter the course of history.
According to captured al-Qaida leaders and documents, the plan is called the “American Hiroshima” and involves the multiple detonation of nuclear weapons already smuggled into the U.S.
Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., said yesterday he would request a briefing on this from the Justice Department.
There are three positions with regard to the problem of how to deter the Islamic “jihad” that threatens a nuclear attack on America, or, if deterrence fails, how we should respond. Each of the positions involves a different strategy.
Position 1
Because terrorist groups like al-Qaeda have no country, we can neither deter them nor retaliate. We just sit here, as we are now, waiting for them to attack, knowing that we cannot completely secure our borders, and our “terrorist -by-terrorist” efforts cannot guarantee our safety. In this position, because we don't know where they are, no strategy is possible. This position is basically a suicidal position.
Position 2
Utilize the Bush doctrine, which says that any nation that harbors terrorists is a hostile nation. Because almost all Muslim nations harbor and support terrorist organizations, in this position we can devise a plan to threaten retaliation, while trying to provide some protection for civilian moderates. A plan to deter or retaliate in this position is complex, involves selectivity, but can be done.
Position 3
Accept the fact that under pressure most Muslims will retreat from being “moderate” because of the numerous verses in the Koran calling them to “jihad.” What the militants are calling for is a return to the “pure fundamentals of the Koran.” This has an almost irresistible appeal to a Muslim. In this position bin Laden is an exaggerated product of ideas basic to Islam and the war is one between civilizations. Events are increasingly moving us toward this position. The strategy involved is relatively simple.
Pertaining to Position 3, we include a selection from an important analysis of this crucial issue by Lawrence Auster in his recent article, The Search for Moderate Islam: Does it Exist:
“While [Daniel Pipes, a Middle East expert] agrees that militant Islam aims to overthrow the West and regain lost Islamic glory, he also says that moderate Islam is quite capable of living at peace with the rest of the world. Therefore, he says, use all political and military means to defeat the Islamists, but seek out the moderates and help them to reform Islamic beliefs and practices.
“We'll call this view ‘ecumenist,’ as it looks forward to a harmony between Islam and the West. [This is our position 2.] But there is another view called ‘civilizationalist,’ which says there are essential incompatibilities between the two civilizations. [This is our position 3.] These two diverging views imply two differing strategic concepts.
“In the ecumenist school we hope the moderates can remake Islamic countries into decent and free societies. But for the civilizationalist school the problem is not militant Islam but Islam itself, from which it follows that we must seek to weaken and contain all Islam, rather than try to create some new, nicer Islam.
“The issue, say Pipes, is ‘momentous,’ and indeed it is. To make a mistake here is to lose everything. Pipes said ‘militant Islam derives from Islam but is a misanthropic, misogynist, triumphalist, anti-modern, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, terroristic, and jihadistic version of it.’
“The problem is, these characteristics can just as easily be attributed to mainstream traditional Islam. Why? Because the verses that encourage these traits are right there in the Koran.
“The center of the faith remains the Koran, which commands jihad, death to apostates, death or slavery to Christians and Jews, the stoning of adulteresses, and all the rest of it. If moderate Islam does not exist, a strategy premised on its existence would be delusional, suicidal.”
One response to an attack, supported by Auster, is deporting all Muslims back to their historic lands, under threat of massive catastrophic retaliation if they try anything again. But deportation ranks low in response to the question, “How should America respond to a nuclear attack?” in a large ongoing poll by WorldNetDaily. The two top responses, with others far behind, are, “Nuke every Islamic capital,” (38%) and “Nuke Mecca” (24%). What is important about these answers is that people clearly don't buy the idea that the terrorists are invulnerable because they don't occupy a country. They clearly hold the Islamic nations somehow responsible.
Already Germany, France, Britain, the Netherlands, and Sweden are sick of the presence of Muslim immigrants. Islam poses huge problems for any free people.
Said the chairman of CAIR, our largest American-Islamic organization, in a recent speech at Freemont, California, “Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”
We do not know the ratio of militants to moderates in the Muslim world. One problem, especially in America, is that many moderates are in fact closet militants. There is an enormous amount of jihad being preached in American mosques. (See the PBS documentary Jihad in America, released even before 9/11.) The world-wide movement is clearly in the direction of the militants, because they take the Koran more literally, claiming therefore that they are the true Muslims. In any debate on militancy, they can always win.
This is the absolute heart of the problem, one we have frequently commented on. Moderates are more likely to move towards the militants under pressure than towards “harmony.” As William J. Bennett said in his remarkable book, Why We Fight, “We have been well cautioned against confusing a fringe movement, the Islamic terrorists, with the center, Islam itself. Let us grant that extreme tendencies 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.”
We see little evidence the center is fighting back. It was singularly quiet regarding 9/11, and most recently, London, almost as if it approved, or suspected that the writings in the Koran allow for such things.
An article just out in The Christian Science Monitor of July 14 highlights the problem: “The attacks are turning attention to the increasing numbers of young British Muslims who are rejecting their parents' traditional culture in favor of a radical and expansionist Islam.” Said Abdullah, a London Muslim leader, “We are taking over. We are here to bring civilization to the West. England does not belong to the English people. It belongs to God.” Said a moderate Muslim of what he saw in a chat room, “They were talking about how they had won a great victory over the infidels.”
If you go to www.v-v-a-r.org and click on Articles on Islam, you will find what we consider to be the most important and insightful articles, out of hundreds, that we have read in the past two years on the subject of Islam and terrorism plus excerpts from our eight earlier articles. Collectively we believe this material presents a fair picture of the situation facing both this nation and the free world. We believe it adds up to the “civilizationalist” position. These are the issues that the media and the university, because of the fog of “multiculturalism” are failing to address for the American people.
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.
We believe the situation is very close to becoming a war between civilizations and that another alternative, besides deportation, is for the U.S. government to immediately tell the Muslim world what parts of it we will destroy on a catastrophic scale if there is another attack on our soil. This threat would be based on the Bush doctrine that “any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” It should include, at minimum, all areas in Muslim nations that harbor terrorists.
The big problem in the way of such plans, of course, is our dependence on the Middle East for oil. Independence on this issue is a major key to future progress in containing terrorism, which highlights the urgency of developing new resources. When it comes to who did it, we will go with probabilities, targeting those nations that have previously issued terroristic threats or are known to harbor terrorists.
In addition, targets should include what bin Laden, in his “Letter to America,” has listed as his main complaints. For example, his first complaint is any presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia, because that is where Mecca is. That tells us Mecca should be of prime consideration as a target. This idea is not new. It was first brought up by Richard Lowery in The National Review in 2002, and has been brought up by others since (see below). If there is to be a civilizational war with Islam, then destroying Mecca would tell them that Allah cannot protect them. At Hiroshima, for example, we compelled the Japanese to recognize the insanity of believing their god would give them world domination and the same psychology may have to be invoked again.
The only hope in civilizational war is to destroy what is called the “generative core” of the ideology, that from which the danger flows, which in this case is essentially the revival in our time of the basic Islamic concept of “jihad,” the attempt to dominate the world after enslaving or slaughtering all “infidels.” It is crucial to work out the most devastating blow to Islam and its symbols as possible.
Because, as someone recently wrote, “Many of those who make the decisions would be willing to sacrifice millions of their own in exchange for millions of ours, especially the religious zealots. If such people get their hands on nuclear weapons, then our threat of retaliation might not prevent them from using them against us.”
Unless our threat of retaliation is so catastrophic that it wipes out many times over any hope of a future for the Islamic enterprise.
If this strikes some as excessive, remember, this is not a preemptive strike. It would happen only after the nuclear destruction of, say, Washington.
While it is true by definition that by killing terrorists in Iraq they can't get us over here, this overlooks that there are others already over here or on their way. Setting up a shield to protect America must be done immediately. When that is done, the next phase is to begin the world-wide exposure, and condemnation, of the violent elements in the Koran using all of our media and communication skills daily to show the Muslim people how they are being victimized by their own religion, which has already impoverished their lands and which offers them in the long run nothing but destruction if they pursue jihad.
All the governments of the civilized world should be issuing proclamations against the violence and inhumanity at the heart of Islam, and especially its oppression of women. What is troubling the earth today is the resurgence of a religion where God is linked to murder. Sura 9:5: “Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.” Mankind cannot live with this. No other religion in the world has a statement like this. It makes Islam an outlaw religion, and the solution will become increasingly obvious.
In literature being distributed at many mosques, Muslims are told they must learn to hate in order to properly love Allah (hate is love), and says of anyone who criticizes Islam that it is acceptable to kill them.
They want to kill us, and then kill us again for complaining. The thug that is torturing the world is right there, at the heart of the Koran. No more photos of people holding up pictures of loved ones at sites where these murderers have struck. The civilized world must end this one way or the other, now.
New voices have been added recently to the effort we began in 2003 to get the government to implement a plan of deterrence to stop a nuclear attack. Both are radical in nature, but it may have to be that way. At least they make us aware of the urgency of the situation.
J. Patrick Griffin, Jr., was the first to lay out a shield for America in a book, America's Answer ( Xulon Press, $14.95, advertised in a full-page ad in The Washington Times).
“How can we feel good at the thought of allowing this problem to continue for the next fifty years or more?” (Experts: War on terror will be an endless fight -Associated Press headline, July 10, 2005). 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.
Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily wrote this in Jan. 2005:
“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?”
It is important to understand that all such plans 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.
We must use our power to end this threat to the world now, or live with it for decades to come during which time there will be successes by the terrorists. They will get through on occasion and destroy our cities one by one. After their first success, the loss of our first city to a nuclear device, there will be a terrible outcry for retaliation and millions could die in a spasm of unplanned nuclear response. Why not think this out and put a threat of retaliation in place now, in hopes of averting even that first attack?
***
To all of my Vietnam vet friends. The first law of warfare is know your enemy. The media and the university have sold out on this. You are now our national leaders, in positions of responsibility and power all over the nation. You recently put truth and honor above everything to defeat Kerry and make sure America had the right Commander-in-Chief. I propose that here is the next mission: Operation Shield America. Think of something you can do to help raise this issue to national awareness. Bumper stickers, talk shows, letters to the editors, group projects, speeches, marches, write your congressman, pass on this article, whatever you can think of. Send me your opinions on this matter, and I'll make an article to America out of them.
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.