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

[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.

[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!

[hixz21]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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!

I think it's wrong if you to judge Islam from Islam country in this era. Don't you know when Muhammad was still the leader of Islam in Mecca, there were still Jews and Chistians in Mecca? He protected them. Even they weren't muslim. He only fought people who went war against Islam. And they didn't kill civilians. What muslim did in that era was a true muslim. Try to read books whose writers are really know Islam from the inside and outside. The life of Islam in that era. And look, Indonesia which Islam are the dominant religion. Are ALL OF THE MUSLIM (I am sorry if the words in caps, I only want to make an assertion) hate the other religions? Hate Chirstians, Buddhism, Hinduism? All of them? No. They don't hate them. They don't offend them. They live in harmony. But still, Indonesia was attacked by terrorists. Said that Indonesian goverment supported the infidels. And the victims of the attack weren't only from foreign country, but Indonesians were also the victims. The muslims were also the victims. And ALL THE INDONESIAN MUSLIM really curse the terrorists. Muhammad didn't teach a suicide attack. Didn't teach to kill brutally. Even if when Islam is on the war, the muslim troops must be stay alive. Must appreciate the soul that has been given to them. If they intend to die by doing suicide, they aren't welcomed in the heaven. They will go to hell. Can you judge who is right? Indonesian Muslim or the terrorist?

Now, look for the Oslo bombing. The actor, Anders Behring Breivik. Killing innocent people, his own fellow Norwegian, because letting Islam and Marxism to expand. Claimed that his action was a neccessary action to defend. The point is, what ever the religion is, it depends on the individual. Even if they are Muslim, Christians, Hinduism, Buddhaism, and so on, if they think like extremist, they do like extremist. If they are b*tch (I am sorry), they are b*tch. Religion is just their excuse to do that. There aren't any religion which teach to be a terrorist. If you really know Islam, actually you would agree. Personally, I wouldn't call Mr. Breivik is a Christian terrorist. I believe Christian didn't teach such a thing. He is just a terrorist. And also I wouldn't call Osama or other people is a Islam terrorist, because Islam didn't teach such a thing that he does, killing innocent people. And for another example, I've read an article that an Arabian girl who was married a European man was killed by her family. That isn't Islam do even if the girl was converted to another religion. But it is true that such thing is a failure to teach her properly about Islam. But, it isn't an excuse to kill her. It's just the family felt embarrassed.

I think it is wise not to judge people from religion, race, country, etc. Just look the individual itself. Human is clever to make any excuse to do things. I am a muslim. And I have many christian friends. Even my best friend is a christian. We live in harmony. That is every religion teaches.

Hix, you are wasting your time, you will be met with walls of self contradictory text by the "expert" who simply makes things up and who once said he had roughly looked at a german translation of the koran as his "explaination" of how he must be right when he was told he was simply making stuff up.
Skybird believes the only muslim ever to have existed and ever to exist is the modern sunni fundamentalist flavour, even the shia are secretly wahibi apparently as are those heretics in bangladesh who are sneakily creating eurabia one switzerland at a time.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by hixz21

I think it's wrong if you to judge Islam from Islam country in this era. Don't you know when Muhammad was still the leader of Islam in Mecca, there were still Jews and Chistians in Mecca? He protected them. Even they weren't muslim.

First, the early Mekkanese period is seen as the introductory phase of Muhammad's life, anbd since he was still installing himself, he indeed was still not that bloody basterd that he later turned into, but a mixture of a desert bandit (he had attacked other caravans for prey and slaughtered their people), a caravan leader, and a traveller coming into contact with the many cults that existed on the Arab peninsula at that time. The sopcial network safeguarding the old and the weak, based on tribal rites and habiuts was about collpasiong at that time, since the rich trader caste, the Quraysh, had come to so much wealkth that they eroded that system for their own profit. That also turned Muhammad into a social critic and maybe an initial revolutionary. His often assumed epilepsia helped him in getting seen as a seer as well. After he fell out of friendship with the elites in Mekka whose profits got threatened by this troublemaker that wanted to get rid of him and his social-revolutionary "movement", they fled to Medina, where he bribed Medinese people into letting him in.

At Medina there lived three Jewish tribes whose pharisees in debate and dispute showed him how little hhis knoweldge about Jewish relgion was. He had lectured himself about Judaism (Islam did not exist, mind you) for around ten years, and thought he were an equal to them and could debate them on same eye level. He couldn'T, and the ylet him fgelt that. His narcissistic reaction - offended as this isolated, megalomainac orphant's ego felt - was to start a war of attack against these tribes, defeating two and driving them away, making a peace with the third and then struck that one again months later by surprise. All boys and males were executed on the central market place, all women were led into working slavery, all young women and girls led into sexual slavery. The Jewish culture in that palce had seized to exist. Genocide we call that today. The massacre was about around 800-900 male prisoners, and until today archeologic research in certain areas of the Medina area are forbidden by death penalty so that evidence for this mass killing should never be produced.

He only fought people who went war against Islam. And they didn't kill civilians. What muslim did in that era was a true muslim. Try to read books whose writers are really know Islam from the inside and outside.

As a matter of fact I am basing on the input of over 30 academic books about Islam'S ideology, Quran, and history, which costed me several years, and I have spend almost one and a half year in the ME, namely Iran and Turkey, but also Algeria, Egypt, and short stops in some others. It is good advise if you want objective information about an ideology that you do not ask a propagator of said ideology, since he has the agenda to defend it and let it shine nice and bright. If I want an answer to the question on the church's role in Eorpean culture, the last adress I would ask is the Vatican. If I want information about Islam, unbiased, objective, academically researched infoirmation, the last guy I ask is an imam or a sympathiser.

Muhammad fought almost 70 wars and predatory raids during the last 25 years of his life. He soon learned that religious claims about himself allowed him to silence critics and intimidate them by making any objections to his demands equal to HERESY and an offence of God in whose place he claimed to speak. When two secretaries (he could not write or read) who fixed in writing his speeches, learned that suggestions they made themselves how he could say something in a better way he later claimed to be not theirs but God's words, they were in danger for their lives and had to flee, sine they knew too much about his secrets.

The life of Islam in that era.

And mainstream Islam has not changed the ideology since then a bit, but has prolongued that era up into the present. That'S why it raises troubles whereever it arrives. Islam is nobody'S friend but everybody'S enemy.

And look, Indonesia which Islam are the dominant religion. Are ALL OF THE MUSLIM (I am sorry if the words in caps, I only want to make an assertion) hate the other religions? Hate Chirstians, Buddhism, Hinduism? All of them? No. They don't hate them. They don't offend them. They live in harmony. But still, Indonesia was attacked by terrorists. Said that Indonesian goverment supported the infidels. And the victims of the attack weren't only from foreign country, but Indonesians were also the victims. The muslims were also the victims. And ALL THE INDONESIAN MUSLIM really curse the terrorists. Muhammad didn't teach a suicide attack. Didn't teach to kill brutally. Even if when Islam is on the war, the muslim troops must be stay alive. Must appreciate the soul that has been given to them. If they intend to die by doing suicide, they aren't welcomed in the heaven. They will go to hell. Can you judge who is right? Indonesian Muslim or the terrorist?

Muhammad mocked his followers when once they were fearful and hesitent before a battle and expressed doubt, and he told them that if they loose their lives when attacking enemies of Islam, this would open the gate top paradise and they were only afraid becasue they did not know the rewards awaiting for them - the usual theistic bullsh!t religions tell soldiers before battle. The problem is that for Isalam, everything not Islamic is not a peaceful neighbour with which to coexist, but as part of the house of war is encessarily an enemy. Which concludes in that fighting against anybody not Isdlamic in true understanding is legitimate. And on suicide attacks, he actively defended that and encouraged his men to sacrifice themselves in order to bring greater damage to the enemy and overcome him. A devoute Muslim is forboidden to commit suicide in a ordinary saocial setting, say becasue he bvecame ill or old or ran out of money or was desparte. But suicide in the menaing of suicide attacks were encouraged by Muhammad.

Then, "enemy" and "Muslim". You cannot arbitrarily define being Muslim this or that way. The definition is based on the Quran and the partial contradictions in the Quran'SA suras from the early Mekkanese and the later Medinese period are in consensus solved by Islamic law schools since the 9th century by the abrogation principle, that mans that the later created sura should claim valdity over the older, if there is a contradiction. POrobölem is that the later Medinese period of Muhammad'S life is that when he had become a conqaueror and warlord and when he had set eyes on overthrowing the wholw world. It is the more violent, warmiongerting period of his life that gets authority in deciding what parts of the Quran dominate others. The suras are not given in historical order, but are soplrted by length, except the first. What is trly Muslim is not open to everybody'S individual opinion, the criterions are pretty much clearly given in the Quran. And since true Muslims - the so-called radical once who in fact are not any radical at all but just true - are obliged to subjugate infidels, and since untrue Muslims are not untgrue but no Muslims at all, it is justified, in this peridfe logic, that Musalims kill "Muslims". It even is justified to kill true Muslims if that sacrifice helps to inflict a greater damage onto the enemy. The greater cause - jihad agaiunst the house of war - justifies about everything.

I said it earlier, and I say it again, it is indeed so that many "Muslims" would not raise their hands against the infidel, but on a higher nation-wide level I see this majorty still not standing up against the true Muslims, but silently letting them do, and even more: their kindness and ethics that may hinder them to do evil is not necessarily becasue of Islamic teahcing but DESPITE Muslim teaching. The Quran is clear: fair treatement only of Muslims, dicrimination of th epeople of the book (Jews Christians) to let them feel their inferiorty and the penalty by Allah whom they refuse to follow, and deathj for all others. Regular murders of Christians and Jews, even priests, bigger progroms and civil war-like mass killings, repressions, legal inequality and hindering, disc riminatio n and intimidation in countries like Egypt, Nigeria, Somalia and Sudan, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, are the daily rule. But when somebody in the West makes a joke about Muhammad - then all Ummah cries out loud in global hysteria. What is hundreds and trhiosuands of killed Jews and Christians every year compared to a cartoon?!?! and I do not know how often I have been complimented by Muslim natives in various countries for being a German, because I should feel so proud of the acchievement of my people when under Hitler we managed to kill so wonderfully many Jews.

We have learned from our mistakes. We regret them. We developed beyond that. Most Christians (I am none, btw) do not take the bible literal anymore. We do not run progroms against Muslims. But the Muslim mainstream still does so, still does believe in the old scripture, unaltered, unreformed. The Quran still rules, Shariah still rules. Where states limit the one or the other, they indeed have abandoned Islam, and by Qzuranic understanding are legitimate targets of attacks, since they are corrupt already, and on the broink of apostacy, or beyond. Islam still lives by the old desert god'S laws, still is stuck in the past 1 thosuand years ago. Where we have been, what we have left behind - Islam is stil, there. And if we do not challenge it, if we do not cionfront it with utmost determination, then it will never chnage, and will n ever leave the old desert god and his tyrannic, psychpopathic rulership behind.

Man must leave his kindergarten years and childish literal beliefs in the desert god behind. Else man will destroy himself. In the name of the desert god. Which would rate us as truly insane, mentally ill creatures, since we would have annihilated ourselves over nothing but hallucinations.

Now, look for the Oslo bombing. The actor, Anders Behring Breivik. Killing innocent people, his own fellow Norwegian, because letting Islam and Marxism to expand. Claimed that his action was a neccessary action to defend. The point is, what ever the religion is, it depends on the individual. Even if they are Muslim, Christians, Hinduism, Buddhaism, and so on, if they think like extremist, they do like extremist. If they are b*tch (I am sorry), they are b*tch. Religion is just their excuse to do that.

Ideology has a strong motivating effect - especially when it is dressing in religious cloths. That'S why it is lectured. It is a motivational factor. So it is better to follow an ideology that does not have racism, hate and intolerance, supression, supremacism and suppression of females in it'S most profound scriptures. I fail to see that in the Quran. Muhammad became the more a tyrannic brutal warcriminal the older he became. You probably know how Turkey's Attatürk referred to him in utmost disgust and antipathy. That such a man like Muhammad, with his violent biography, is seen as a founder of a relion preaching peace and tgolerance and kindness, is an affront to reasonable thinking and an offence to any sane mind. You could as well call Stalin a liberal humanist or Hitler a candidate for the peace Nobel prize. If Muhammad would still be alive today, we should send him to The Hague, or Guantanamo. No matter where - we would lock him away, to protect our children and give them hope for a better future not messed up by this man.

There aren't any religion which teach to be a terrorist. If you really know Islam, actually you would agree. Personally, I wouldn't call Mr. Breivik is a Christian terrorist. I believe Christian didn't teach such a thing. He is just a terrorist. And also I wouldn't call Osama or other people is a Islam terrorist, because Islam didn't teach such a thing that he does, killing innocent people. And for another example, I've read an article that an Arabian girl who was married a European man was killed by her family. That isn't Islam do even if the girl was converted to another religion. But it is true that such thing is a failure to teach her properly about Islam. But, it isn't an excuse to kill her. It's just the family felt embarrassed.

Sorry, on apostacy by Shariah law is the death penalty. That is Islam, truely and in full. Skipping on that is not in conformity with Islam

I think it is wise not to judge people from religion, race, country, etc. Just look the individual itself.

I think it is wise to not judge humans on basis of their skin colour and race, but to take into account the social and cultural climate and environment they grew up in and that most likely has had an effect on their worldview and education, and I urgently press people to look very closely at what religion people claim to follow. Relgion too long has been given the benefit of doubt, and iot took all benefits and allowed no doubts. Theistic religion is the biggest tyrant in human history, and it is dripping with blood. To hell with it, and all names it has given to its idols and deities.

P.S. German has just suspended its first police inspector who abused his position on behalf of the salafist movement which in Germany is seen as a threat to the constitutional order and is under surveillance by intelligence service and that Staatsschutz. The man most likely will get fired from service, and most likely will go to the court, since infiltration of the social institutions as well as the security structures of the state is of utmost priority for Salafist and other Muslim colonists wanting Sharia law in Germany. During riots Salafists have attacked policemen with knifes and intentionally stabbed three of them, several dozen police officers got wounded in the ongoing riot. There are charges over attempted murder, and arrests. Riots broke out because the Salafists are running a campaign in the streets to distribute one Quran per household in germany, but had a problem with a counter movement protesting against a Salafi mosque and held up signs repeating the famous Danish bomb-in-a-turban cartoon.

It's so good to have guests like this who respect the house right of the owner and behave accordingly.

Primitives. Dangerous, unscrupullous, underhanded - but still just primitives.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.