Mayor Giuliani at end of Republican debate: "Not once did the Democrats mention Islamic terrorism."
Nor did any of the media or university people who questioned the candidates.
 
OBVIOUS QUESTIONS THAT WERE NOT ASKED OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES, DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICANS:

 

How would you respond to a nuclear attack on the U.S.?
Many people want America to meet Islamic threats with a threat of catastrophic retaliation. Would you consider this?
There are many who argue that Islam is the root cause of international terrorism. Do you agree ?

 

-------------------------------------------

 

This is the third time we are sending out this article, each time beginning with new reports on the connection between Islam and terrorism. It is the summary article out of eleven on deterrence we sent out beginning July 31, 2003. Excerpts from these may be seen at "Articles on Islam", at v-v-a-r.org.

 

Not long ago we wrote that the old "military/industrial" complex has been replaced as the number one internal threat to America by the "media/university " complex. The original media/university "root cause" explanation of the terrorist crisis as "a peaceful religion hijacked by extremists" is now viewed as naive, with all the better commentators turning to focus on Islam as the cause. Following are examples of this.

 

ISLAM AND TERRORISM

 

Andrew C. McCarthy of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies recently wrote this:
"The principal challenge of al-Queda is that it spearheads the spread of a strong, though noxious, ideology. The group does not purport to give directions only to its own members, it presumes to be guiding all Muslims toward that which Islam compels. This is abundantly clear from bin Laden's infamous 1998 fatwa. "The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies - civilian and military - is an individual's duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God."
The direction is to everyone. In bin Laden's mind he is merely the medium, the direction comes from Allah. He cites verses from the Koran to convince Muslims that it is the ideology itself which announces these commands, compelling every Muslim, not just al-Queda operatives, to perform. But the ideology indisputably springs from Islam."

 

Amil Imani is an Iranian born American citizen and pro-democracy activist residing in the U.S..
"Beliefs steer people in life. Some beliefs are harmless, some are the motive force for good and yet others are delusional, misguided, and even outright dangerous. Every version of the belief called "Islam" ranges from the delusional to the dangerous. This delusion presently has in its stranglehold over a billion humans, posing an existential threat to all non-Muslims. Islam is rooted in the primitive tribal mentality of "We the righteous against heathens." To Islam, a non-Muslim is a combatant against Allah and he is fair game to be subjugated and killed. When a billion people adhere to this pathological belief and use it as their marching order of life, the rest of humanity can ignore the threat only at its peril."

 

Many see Islam as a religion that threatens all humanity. Sam Harris argues this in his best selling new book, ”The End of Faith.”
"It is widely claimed by ‘moderates’ that Islam is a ‘religion of peace.’ You need only to read the Koran to see that this is untrue. The basic thrust of Islam is undeniable: convert, subjugate, or kill unbelievers; kill apostates, and conquer the world. There is no substitute for confronting the Koran itself. On almost every page, the Koran instructs Muslims to despise non-believers.
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."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

BACKGROUND TO THE THREAT
In his new book , "Unconquerable Nation," Brian Michael Jenkins draws on 40 years of research on terrorism , most of it conducted at the prestigious RAND Corporation. In the following are some excerpts from his work especially relevant to the connection between Islam and terrorism as well as deterrence.

 

"The instructors gave me a Koran to which they had added pages," said one recruit. He was referring to "Interpretation of the Meaning of the Noble Koran", in which the authors add footnotes to the Koran, inciting hatred of Jews, elevating jihad, which they describe exclusively as armed struggle, and exalting martyrdom."

 

In other words , the numerous verses in the Koran advocating violence against Jews, Christians, and non-Muslims has made it easy to transform it into a terrorist manual and recruiting tool, the "Mein Kampf" of Islamic jihad. American networks should get a copy of this version of the Koran and show the American people how the terrorist movement flows logically from these verses in the Koran.

 

There is no question but what the Koran can be used as the inspiration behind international terrorism. This has now been scientifically quantified by linguist Tina Magaard of Denmark , who has concluded that Islamic texts encourage terror and fighting to a far greater degree than the original texts of other religions. She has a Ph.D. in Textual Analysis and Intercultural Communication from the Sorbonne in Paris, and has spent three years on a research project comparing the original texts of ten major religions.

 

Says Magaard:
"The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs. There are also straighforward calls for terror. This has long been a taboo in the research into Islam, but it is a fact we need to deal with. If it is correct that many Muslims view the Koran as the literal words of God, which cannot be interpreted or rephrased, then we have a problem. It is indisputable that the texts encourage terror and violence. Consequently, it must be reasonable to ask Muslims (as the Pope has done) how they relate to the text, if they read it as it is."

 

A recent proposal on how to end terrorism is found in the "Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding" currently before the European Parliament which will, "enable Muslims from all strands of belief to make it plain that they reject those extremist interpretations of their religious texts that promote or excuse violence and bring Islam into conflict with the world." Authored by Sam Solomon, a converted terrorist leader and Islamic law expert, the Charter calls upon Muslims to:
1) Respect non-Muslim religions and prohibit the use of force, violence or threats to their followers.
2) Acknowledge the precedence of all national laws over Islamic, or Sharia, law.
3) Respect Western freedoms of belief and expression and prohibit violent reactions against people who use those freedoms. (such as the Pope)
4) Prohibit any religious declaration that would result in violence or threat against individuals or institutions. (such as bin Laden's fatwa against Americans)
5) Request Islamic institutions to revise and issue new interpretations of Koran verses calling for Jihad and violence against non-Muslims.

 

Just the perceived need to issue such a proposal shows that there is a problem.
 
"The New York Sun" recently said this on the need to change Islam:
"Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the world has learned a great deal about politicized Islam....and it has become clear that Islam needs a serious self-examination. The rejection of others - which is a basic foundation of Islam that is built into Islamic texts and practices - makes it impossible to divorce the religion from the violent impulses it inspires. The Koran is full of references to those who are not Muslims as "infidels." The Koran speaks in incredible detail of the need to do battle with infidels.
That concept should absolutely be revisited and revised by Muslim scholars if we are to believe they want peace. The aggressive demarcation of Muslims and infidels runs through all Islamic religious texts and speeches communicated to the faithful in millions of mosques across the globe spreading the seeds of menace. Islam as practiced today in virtually all Muslim countries does not fashion itself merely as a spiritual value, but as a conquering force with a need to dominate."

 

The truth is, proposals such as these ask that Islam change into something it cannot be. The world's dream of an effective "moderate" counter-movement is absolutely a fantasy. For the simple reason that the Islam of "jihad" can always trump moderates with quotes direct from the Koran. Contextual reinterpretation is not acceptable to the vast majority of Islamic scholars, who also hold to the principle of "abrogation", the rule that says the more violent verses of the later Koran of the bloody Medina period nullify the more peaceful verses of the earlier Meccan period. For that reason the argument is strong that terrorism in the final analysis has its roots in the Koran, which comes straight from the being of God, and allows of no reinterpretation.

 

RECENT THREATS

 

TIME magazine -" 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. "

 

Associated Press. “Surrounded by five masked men carrying missiles Aba Salma Al-Hijazi, an al-Qaeda commander, 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. The attack will change the order of things. Americans should prepare their coffins, hospitals, and graves."

 

“Osama bin Laden now has religious approval to use a nuclear device against Americans, Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA unit charged with tracking down the Saudi terrorist, told Steve Kroft on ‘60 Minutes’ Sunday. “Even if bin Laden had a nuclear weapon, he would not have used it for a lack of proper religious authority, authority he now has.” The approval found that bin Laden was perfectly within his rights to use them, to kill up to ten million Americans, two million of them children.”

 

There is no question but what these are threats of approaching nuclear attack.
--------------------------------
THREATS CLOSE BUT FOILED

 

British authorities say they have foiled eight or nine such attacks, and President Bush said in a speech in 2006 that ten terrorists attacks had been prevented, including several in the United States. In his last annual national security assessment to the Senate Armed Services Committee , CIA Director George Tenet said, "Attacks have been prevented that otherwise would have taken place. The main enemy remains the United States. We have time and again uncovered plots that are chilling. A spectacular attack against the United States remains the top goal and acquiring chemical, biological or nuclear weapons remains a "religious obligation" in the eyes of Osama bin Laden."
Why a "religious obligation"? Again, this has little to do with "social injustices," that is befuddled liberal thinking. This is a religious phenomenon.
Tenet refers to plots that are "chilling." He did not elaborate. Robert Mueller, head of the FBI, on Larry King Live this week also referred to plots that have been uncovered, without elaborating. But we can assume from what both say that the danger is very close and very deadly.
 
Jenkins in the Appendix to his book gives two interesting lists:
a) Chronology of selected jihadist attacks since 9/11. (33)
b) Failed terrorist plots (46) :
"Had the terrorists carried out every plot, 12 to 14 more commercial airlines would have been crashed into various targets; another 15 would have been shot down with missiles. Several more ships would have been attacked, many more additional bombings would have occurred. Attacks involving lethal chemicals, botulinum toxin, and ricin would have occurred in Europe and Jordan. Killing as many as possible seems to have been the paramount criterion in most of the plans. Had all of them succeeded, thousands would have died."
Just shooting down one commercial airliner would plunge America into panic and economic chaos. All it takes is a hand-held missile launcher similar to those that have recently shot down U.S. helicopters in Iraq.

 

ON DETERRING THE THREATS

 

Jenkins writes:
"Contagious diseases or a nuclear explosion could vault direct casualties into a realm two or three orders of magnitude greater than that of the 9/11 attacks- to the tens of thousands, hundred of thousands, or possibly even millions of fatalities. Either a bio-terrorist attack or a nuclear attack would produce unpredictable societal, economic, and political effects. Either type of attack would unleash unprecedented fury and would fuel a demand for all-out warfare, with relatively few constraints against any group or government known or perhaps even suspected of being responsible. Everyone, including our adversaries, should understand that.
All governments should also understand that any attack involving a nuclear weapon will demand responses governed by completely new rules and against which considerations of sovereignty will provide little protection.

 

Potential foes might be informed that in the unimaginable aftermath of a terrorist nuclear attack, the United States may not feel obliged to wait for proof of a particular country's involvement, but may instead choose to strike on suspicion alone. The objective of such a policy would be to expand uncertainty. The threat would not be specific, and methods need not be specified, but it would make the point that in the wake of a devastating terrorist-initiated pandemic or terrorist nuclear attack, a post-apocalypse world would be unpredictable. Massive retaliation, preemptive attacks, actions by other states that feel threatened, even actions by independent groups bent upon revenge are all possible, perhaps inevitable."

 

The indeterminate element in these comments reminds us of an important summary of this issue by Joseph Farrah of "WorldNetDaily" 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?”

 

What better place to have a national debate than during the remaining presidential debates ?

 

The U.S. government periodically issues an official list of nations seen by the U.S. as harboring or aiding terrorists. The President could announce to the world that there are further lists that outline areas in these nations, unspecified, that have been pre-selected as targets for their high concentration of terrorist activity. Any attack on America and an unspecified number of these areas, he could warn, will be instantly destroyed by nuclear or conventional bombs.
This is the most fateful convergence in the history of mankind, an unparalleled murderous religious crusade with weapons capable of unimaginable mass extinction of life. No scenario can be discounted as "too radical" if there is a chance it can stop an evil like this.

 

THREATS CLOSING IN
 
A Second Wave of Terrorism Hits the U.S. -
June 3, 2007
Three people were arrested and another was being sought Saturday for allegedly plotting to blow up a fuel line that feeds JFK International Airport and runs through residential neighborhoods , authorities said. At a news conference U.S. Attorney Roslynn R. Mauskopf called it "one of the most chilling plots imaginable."The arrests mark the latest in a series of alleged homegrown terrorist plots targeting high-profile American landmarks.
A year ago, seven men were arrested in what officials called the early stages of a plot to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago and destroy FBI offices and other buildings.
A month later, authorities broke up a plot to bomb underwater New York City train tunnels to flood lower Manhanttan.
Six people were arrested a month ago in an alleged plot to unleash a bloody rampage at Fort Dix in New Jersey.

 

Washington, June 23, 2007 - The world faces an estimated 50 percent chance of a nuclear, biological, or chemical attack over the next five years , according to national security analysts surveyed for a Congressional study released Wednesday. Chairman Sen. Richard Lugar , R-Ind. said, "The bottom line is this. For the foreseeable future , the United Sates and other nations will face an existential threat from the intersection of terrorism and the threat of mass destruction."  Henry Crumpton, outgoing terror coordinator told Congress last week, "We don't want to acknowledge we're going to get hit again in the homeland, but we are. That's a hard, ugly fact . But it's going to happen." (Newsweek, Jan. 22)

 

Newt Gingrich, in a speech in New Hampshire recently said:
"I think that the national security threat of losing an American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several million Americans to a biological attack is so real that we need to proactively, now, develop the appropriate rules of engagement. Rules which make very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction, and those who would target civilians are in fact subject to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism.
This is a very sober topic, and I think it is a topic we need a national dialogue about, and we need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait until we lose a city which could literally happen . We are now at war with a culture that wants, not to take over our land, but to kill us."

 

From the Terrorism Update Newsletter sent out by America's Truth Forum.
A group of nuclear weapons specialists has issued ominous warnings before members of the U.S. Congress that terrrorist groups like al-Qaeda could launch a massive attack on the United States and currently there is little to defer or defend against such a strike. Robert Galucci , a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Political -Military Affairs, says "The most likely threat is that a terrorist group would acquire a nuclear weapon and introduce it into the United States. It seems to me that this is a threat against which we have neither a defense nor a deterrent."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The danger is real, media and university are hiding it, and the leftist 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 is the nation’s top priority. It is true that we have "neither a defense nor a deterrent."
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, “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.
There has been no national debate on deterrence. We have never heard the media mention the word. 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 or cause. We have been able to raise the issue in a number of radio interviews in Colorado, Vermont, North Carolina, California, Florida, and recently Washington, D.C.. And at least two online newspapers will print everything we send them. You can see our articles at WMDterror.com. But we need to raise this issue to national awareness. Glenn Beck could certainly do it.He has been outstanding in raising closely related issues. We therefore urge everyone reading this, in particular Vietnam vet groups, to help spread the word. Once you realize that the experts believe an Hiroshima size or larger nuclear attack can happen at any time, and you think of this happening say,  to New York , or Washington, D.C., you must join us on this mission.
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A PLAN TO RESPOND TO THE THREATS

 

1) American bombers will take off continuously, night and day, headed for unspecified Muslim nations, loaded with conventional and nuclear bombs. If nothing happens in the U.S., they then turn around at a designated point and return to their base. This is the old 'fail- safe' strategy of the Cold War era. Or bombers on alert on warships close offshore Muslim lands could be used.
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.

 

.2) The second part of the plan is for the free world to expose the truth about Islam. That is, every day, using all forms of communication, TV, lectures, radio, documentaries, etc., show the verses of the Koran advocating violence, 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 or slaughter. In the long run the real solution to terrorism may be the total discrediting of Islam as a religion of hatred that the world cannot live with.
The indoctrination in sacred scripture in Islam creates the belief that Americans, Jews, Hindus, and other non-Muslims are not human beings in the same sense as Muslims, and can be and should be slaughtered with impunity. You can see this clearly in these posters widely displayed at a recent Muslin demonstration in London. (Associated Press):

 

Behead those who insult Islam
Europe, your extermination is on the way
Islam will dominate the world
Butcher those who mock Islam
Freedom go to hell
Europe - take some lessons from 9/11
 
So the message of deterrence is - just don't try it. This is a conditional plan, of the nature, "If you do that -we will do this." Nothing need actually happen. If it does, they will be responsible - for the destruction of their own people. We must be prepared to 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?

 

At the next presidential debate, we need to raise the questions. What hope is there for a nation under siege that cannot name the enemy or take the obvious steps to challenge its threats ?

 

AN INSIDE THREAT
 
U.S. Developing Plans for Post-Nuclear Terror Attack (AP) - As concerns grow that terrorists might attack a major American city with a nuclear bomb, a high-level group has been quietly preparing an emergency survival program that would include building of bomb shelters, steps to prevent panicked evacuations, and the possible suspension of some civil liberties. Organized by a joint Stanford Univ.-Harvard Univ. program called the Preventive Defense Project, senior officials met behind closed doors in Washington for a day-long workshop. The session, called "The Day After", was premised on the idea that efforts focusing on preventing such a strike were no longer enough and that the possibility of collapse of order so great the country needs to begin preparing an emergency program.

 

WHAT EFFORTS TO PREVENT A STRIKE ?
 
Our brethren in the halls of ivy, self-paralyzed by their own leftist hate-America philosophy are ready to move from the threat to the day after destruction without firing a shot.
 
Patrick Henry - "Gentlemen may cry Peace, Peace ! - but there is no peace. The war is actually begun. The next gale that sweeps from the North will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms. Our brethren are already in the field. Why stand we here idle ?"

 

To do so on this issue is to begin a death watch.

 

magruder44@aol.com <mailto:magruder44@aol.com> <<