U.S. Military Taught Officers: Use ‘Hiroshima’ Tactics for ‘Total War’ on Islam

[Catfish]

A small cabal of self-anointed "counterterrorism experts", or just some xenophobic haters with a religious agenda ?
Not that Al-quaeda ever existed in the way it is still perpetrated to the masses by Fox News or The Sun.

"The harm perpetuated on student officers “who accepted the implied authority of the instructor,” Ollivant added, “is obvious"

As if one had not known it before


" ... For the better part of the last decade, a small cabal of self-anointed counterterrorism experts has been working its way through the U.S. military, intelligence and law enforcement communities, trying to convince whoever it could that America’s real terrorist enemy wasn’t al-Qaida — but the Islamic faith itself. In his course, Dooley brought in these anti-Muslim demagogues as guest lecturers. And he took their argument to its final, ugly conclusion. ..."

Source: Wired Dangerroom:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012...tal-war-islam/


What some officer really thinks of this approach -
Top U.S. Officer: Stop This ‘Total War’ on Islam Talk:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012...irresponsible/


It is however good to see not all swallow that xenophobic hate without answering.

[the_tyrant]

This kind of ruins the credibility of the military, especially when what they need is more Muslims to enlist. As it takes someone familiar with the faith to combat extremists of the faith.

although to be fair, this is exactly what they teach over there, just flip over the ideologies

[Morts]

So, your source is a blog that links to itself and other dubious material for sources.

[Catfish]

No, those are two different articles, but from one website, and also not a "blog". There are also links to other sites quoting, in this article.

And some others not from this site:

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworl...ght-that-islam

http://www.montereyherald.com/nation...its-view-islam

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...r-Muslims.html

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/10/448...o-dismiss.html

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Morts

So, your source is a blog that links to itself and other dubious material for sources.

Had it thismorning myself, but passed on openiong a thread on it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18030105

I cannot comment by thta piec eon whether the course was going too far or not, but it certainly is true that the ideology of Islam itself is the problem. It is violent, it is totalitarian, it makes supremacist claims and raises the demand that there can be no peace as long as Islam does not rule all world, it is demanding slavery of females, it is demanding discrimination and subjugation of infidels, it is racist to the very bone. One needs to poke one'S eyes out with a pencil not to see that if one spends some time on investigating Quran and the history of Sharia, Sira and Hadith.

So, the basic premise of that course, that the war must be understood to be directed against a deeply hostile and inhumane ideology motivating barbarism since over a thousand years, is correct. On the conclusions they went to in that course, I will not comment without knowing more, and in context.

That now people criticising Islam for the above qualities get bashed again by calling them phobics and insanes, just shows me how insane the place of the world is I happen to live in. It's a madhouse that denies realities that does not fit it's wishful thinking. And I have tremendously lost inteerest and motivation in the past two or three years to defend in word or even in deed this sphere of walking idiots. The current Zeitgeist gives me the strong impression that Wetserners maybe deserve to live under EU tyranny and Sharia law. They deserve it becasue they have given up to want something better, fighting to gain it, and defending the cultural heritage of the past, namely freedom, the tradition of humanism and rationality, and secularism.

If you do not appreciate freedom, you do not deserve it. That's how I see it. It's like that with most iof not all precious things and qualities, isn't it. If you cannot appreciate something, then it is wasted on you.

If my conclusion on Islam - and fundamentalist religion in general - offends anyone, as far as I am concerned he can be offended and even can drop dead, if that is what he wants. There is no right not to be offended. And notoriously offended Mulims are a plague these days. These years. These centuries . Ehm - has it ever been different? The offence lies in something existing that is still not Islamic, maybe even decides to resists to it (not the West, certainly). That is evil at its best!

[August]

Originally Posted by Catfish

No, those are two different articles, but from one website, and also not a "blog". There are also links to other sites quoting, in this article.

And some others not from this site:

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworl...ght-that-islam

http://www.montereyherald.com/nation...its-view-islam

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...r-Muslims.html

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/10/448...o-dismiss.html

Just because a few other newspapers pick up the story doesn't mean it's any more true than the Polish dentist who took out all her ex-boyfriends teeth. At most it's probably a mole hill being made into a mountain for the consumption of those who are looking for reasons to dislike the US.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Morts

So, your source is a blog that links to itself and other dubious material for sources.

It was also mentioned on the BBC World Service this morning.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18032968

It's not going to do much for the popularity of the US in the Middle East...but then again there's not much the US could do to actually change that opinion and if you're going to wage war against a religion then you have to go all out.
No-one in the western world would accept a total war though, so the whole thing is meaningless.

So, your source is a blog that links to itself and other dubious material for sources.

But it has been confirmed by the US military

Just because a few other newspapers pick up the story doesn't mean it's any more true than the Polish dentist who took out all her ex-boyfriends teeth.

Since those ones came out after the military had confirmed it why do you still have a problem accepting it?

[Osmium Steele]

Originally Posted by Catfish

It is however good to see not all swallow that xenophobic hate without answering.

Those who remain ignorant of their history are doomed to repeat it.

From the moment Muhammad's followers kicked the pagans out of Mecca, and an argument can be made it started earlier in Medina, Islam has been at war with anyone and anything NOT of Allah.

That some recognize this fact does not make them xenophobic, and there is nothing righteous about ridiculing those who have a clear understanding of world history.

The only respite the western world has had in the interim, was the 60 years or so after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in WWI. We became complacent, and thought a war which had waged for over a millenia had somehow ended.

If you want to see true xenophobia, study the Quran and the Haditha. Even scarier than the old testament.

One of my favorites. Sahih muslim book 41 iirc:

Allah's Apostle said, "You will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' "

[TLAM Strike]

About time someone from the DoD started talking about using good old General Order 24.

Of course they are going to call him an insane bigot right up until they do it to us.

[Skybird]

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.

One of my favorites

For balance can you show the version from the bible dealing with the same events?

Even scarier than the old testament.

its a new testament reworking of an old testament theme if you don't mind comparing honestly.

[Skybird]

Since we're at it, Pat Condell. Look what book somebody got for himself on Monday!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Godless-Free...6743522&sr=8-1

Now, there it is, my weekly dose of Satanic action. Hm, tastes great!

On the German and American Amazon site, the English book is available, too, and there can be checked for content list and the complete preface on the Why and How of the book. I gave the British link due to the many more reviews. Of course, there are only 1 or 5 stars (3 1-stars, 11 5-stars). Any other result than such polarising would have been a disappointment.

[Catfish]

Well to be true there are equally 'strange' texts in the old testament, the difference certainly being that even the most conservative christians would probably not do today, what has been written down there. Or would they?

The bible and the christians have laid those special passages ad acta, and more or less adapted to the modern world (with a few queerheads here and there), as have the Jews.

My question is, would the christian parts of religion have adapted and reduced their power voluntarily ?

However - has the Q'ran experienced this kind of interpretation at some point, and by whom ? - Really do not know it.
And between the 7th and 8th century the islamic world was the most advanced, technically and scientifically - what happened then ?

Anyway a well-educated muslim in the US studying informatics and then maybe starting an enterprise in or around silicon valley will probably still have his faith, without being attracted by what Al Quaeda does ?

So what would they want to do - kill all muslims ? A worlwide crusade ?

[Skybird]

The freedom and humane graceness we have in the West (at least Non-Wetsern people move to our places to live here, not us moving to theirs to live in theirs) is not due to the church, but have been efnorced against bitter resietnce from the church. The OT and the NT are two different things, and the god Jesus mentioned is a different cinstruction in essence then the old, psychopathic, hate-filled, cruel revenge-driven sadistic basterd the OT speaks about. Christianity's god was kind of a reformed, "tamed" version of the not any less unfriendly Jewish god. See the Christian fundamentalists, see the Jewish orthodox - they are behaving much the same dark ways. Muhammad also quick-copied the Jewish faith, and then altered it to meet his specific political needs. It always has been more politcal ideology and sociological control, then a religion.

However, all that is history and not really important. What makes the important difference is that we have moved beyond that level of mediaval barbarism and cruelty and taking the dogma'S faith literally. Islam has not.

We have understood that the later crusades, that went beyond the intention to defend against the Islamic aggression and to gain back what had been lost to Muslim armies (mind you, we are talking about a Muslim attack on the ME, Byzantine, Europe, North africa and to the NE towards Persia and India, not the other way around!), were not posiotive to be judged, and we do not celebrate them anymore. Islam is on its own "crusade" against all mankind until today.

We have moved beyond stoning our women for adultery, and move constantly towards more gender equality. Islam does not.

We do not take the OT literal anymore, and most church-followers today tend to exclusiovely go with the four gospels anyway. Islam has no seen a reorfrmation, the Quran knows no difference between the god of the old and the god of the new book, and a reformner like Jesus there has not been and has not left a footprint in the Quran. The Quran is the equivalent of the OT. It has no equivalent to the NT, the four gospels, or Jesus teachings.

In other words, that I have used many times but that describe it so perfectly: Islam got stuck with it'S head in the ar4e of history, 1400 years deep. Were we imporved for 1000 years, it stagnated, and its people became fatalistic.

The basis for the once given superiority of Arab culture (Arab is not the same as Islamic, since Arabia was there long since before that Muhammad boy came along) was led long before Muhammad, and it carried on to puish the swing for some time after he impoacted. Nev ertheless muhammad from all beginning on established supression of arts, creative thinking, science that was not aiming at provoing why Muhammad'S words were right, because Muhammad wanted a strong army, a strong comunity - and he acchiueved that b y monoculture, totalitarian unity, supression of critics and independent thinking. In the three centuries after Muhammad, the domga strnagled arts and creativity and science and criticla thinkling more and more, and when then the Mongoles stormed over the continent and made short business with the Muslims in Persia and at that opporutnity annihilated the only, the very only really promising reformation movement there ever has been in Islam - the Islamic mystic -, the freeze was complete. Europe moved on, caught up with arabia, and finally overtook it. If I were Arab, I would be furious with rage over what Muhammad has doine to my home culture. He did the same to Arabs, like that Hitler did to Germany - just far more complete and far more total. By its starting conditions, Arabia was in such a comfrotable psotiion (trade, science, medicine, maths) that were we are today, maybe Arabia should have been today. But that was until Muhammad appeared.

This shows why I think nobody does a favour to Islam if he spares it to confront itself with it'S self-deception and its stupid medieval lies. If all world appeases it all the time, then Muslim people have no reason whatever to move, to ask questions, to start working on their cultural fate and escape stagnation. Why should they, iof they get all benefits our Western culture has invented, is given them for free? You want a modenrised, reformed MiddleEastern world? Then understand that Islam is monolithic, that you cannot sepöarate Sharia from the rest of Sunnah por the Quran, and that Islam always has been a political ideology to justify ongoing conquest and subjugation of others . It equals totalitaian ideolgoiies like Fascism, nazism, Stlanism, or Maoism. It just has a far wider, and longer aim, is unlimited in its ambitions, where all the above accepted regional and instrumental limits. Neither Mao nor Stalin nor Hitler aimed at subjugating the whole planet. Islam does. Because else, in its understanding, it cannot have peace. Its own peace, that is.

Denying all this also doesa a great injustice, even mockery, to the many apostates fro islam that accept great risks and losses to escape the tyranny it wants over theirt minds and hgearts. It mocks and ignored the women standign up againstt heir families, and the people that flee from Muslim countries to escape the barbarism and supression there. It mocks and oignroes that fact that year by year in over two dozen Musliom coutnries people get killed by Muslims for not beingMuslim, for not wanting to become Muslim, or becoming apostates. It ignores that moderate Muslims are not mainstream Muslims. The mainstream still is extremely orthdoox, and for the most acepts the rule of Shariah law. It ignores and mocks the thousands of Christians that get slaughtered in religiously motivated progroms in Africa and the ME, the many victims of terror motivated by Islamic ideology. The idoleogy of Islam breeds evil, cruelty, hate and intolerance. Because that is what it is as an ideology. It's only natural.

Since one thousand years, Jews and C hristians get symstamtically discriminated in Muslim countires, and their communities shrink and shrink. Arabia once has been a truly multi-cultural place. Today it is a dead mono-culture frozen is fanatism, and ignorrance. For every church being closed or stormed in the Muslim world, ten mosques get build in the West. For every non-Muslim cultural artifact destroyed by a Muhammeddan mob, ten Islamic propaganda centres get opened in the West.

What is so difficult there to see that we are following a self-deconstructing, suicidal course that only makes us falling back, falling back, and then falling back some more again? Islam will not become tolerant all by itself. It will not stop. It will not reform all by itself. It will not become multicultural, and embracing the other who is not Muslim. Either we have the guts and the power to make it stop and poush it back to where it belongs, or it will continue to erode us, infiltrate us, turn our laws and values against us, abuse our tolerance, outbreed us, shout us down, intimidate us, blackmail us, and occasionally bomb us.