SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post - U.S. Military Taught Officers: Use ‘Hiroshima’ Tactics for ‘Total War’ on Islam

Skybird · 05-11-12, 08:35 AM

It is a non-starter. I want to point out the link in Oberon's article. The original material can be found here:

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/da...design_v11.pdf

I have just finished flying over it. And I wonder what the outcry is about. The parts not specifically illustrating internal doctrinal structures of the US' OOB, could have been done by me the way they are printed there.

There is nothing, it seems, that I have not said myself many times in this forum.

The author at the beginning - to my surprise - mentions the impoortance of the abrogation principle. That got me by surprise becasue in most books I have read about Islam, it gets ignored, overlooked, and not mentioned at all, although it is of so very serious consequences. I remiond on that the major law schools of Islam agreed on the validity of the abrogation principle from I think 9th century on.

The Hiroshima part is on page 8 where the author says his model pressumes that Geneva Convention standards due to the practices of Islamic terrorists can no longer globally respected everywhere, in principle leaving open an argument for the option that historic precedences like Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki serve as an example on how to bring war again to civilian populations as in Mekka and Medina as targets for such a strike - possibly - as part of a multi-layered stratgey of how to tackle Islam(-"ism") in the global war thgat said Islam has already declared against all the world, and is practicing already since years (with tens of thousands getting killed).

On page three the author asks a question that is of utmost importance.

HOW CAN WE PROPERLY IDENTIFY THE ENEMY, ANALYZE HIS WEAKNESSES, AND DEFEAT HIM, IF WE ARE NEVER PERMITTED TO EXAMINE HIM FROM THE MOST BASIC DOCTRINAL LEVEL?

That could have been from Pat Condell.

At the end the authgor points out another fact that I have tried to hammer home time and again. "Moderate Islam" is not "Mainstream Islam", but is a minor faction only. I argzue on basis that this moderateness is no due to Quranic teaching, but despite Quranic teaching, already representing an act of apostacy. That is why it is legitimate from a truely Islamic POV that Muslims kill such moderate Muslims, true Muslims are obliged to do so. That is no radical Islam, and no Islmaism or terrorism - that IS mainstream Islam.

05-11-12, 08:35 AM	#11
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,636 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	It is a non-starter. I want to point out the link in Oberon's article. The original material can be found here: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/da...design_v11.pdf I have just finished flying over it. And I wonder what the outcry is about. The parts not specifically illustrating internal doctrinal structures of the US' OOB, could have been done by me the way they are printed there. There is nothing, it seems, that I have not said myself many times in this forum. The author at the beginning - to my surprise - mentions the impoortance of the abrogation principle. That got me by surprise becasue in most books I have read about Islam, it gets ignored, overlooked, and not mentioned at all, although it is of so very serious consequences. I remiond on that the major law schools of Islam agreed on the validity of the abrogation principle from I think 9th century on. The Hiroshima part is on page 8 where the author says his model pressumes that Geneva Convention standards due to the practices of Islamic terrorists can no longer globally respected everywhere, in principle leaving open an argument for the option that historic precedences like Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki serve as an example on how to bring war again to civilian populations as in Mekka and Medina as targets for such a strike - possibly - as part of a multi-layered stratgey of how to tackle Islam(-"ism") in the global war thgat said Islam has already declared against all the world, and is practicing already since years (with tens of thousands getting killed). On page three the author asks a question that is of utmost importance. HOW CAN WE PROPERLY IDENTIFY THE ENEMY, ANALYZE HIS WEAKNESSES, AND DEFEAT HIM, IF WE ARE NEVER PERMITTED TO EXAMINE HIM FROM THE MOST BASIC DOCTRINAL LEVEL? That could have been from Pat Condell. At the end the authgor points out another fact that I have tried to hammer home time and again. "Moderate Islam" is not "Mainstream Islam", but is a minor faction only. I argzue on basis that this moderateness is no due to Quranic teaching, but despite Quranic teaching, already representing an act of apostacy. That is why it is legitimate from a truely Islamic POV that Muslims kill such moderate Muslims, true Muslims are obliged to do so. That is no radical Islam, and no Islmaism or terrorism - that IS mainstream Islam. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.