# U.S. Military Taught Officers Hiroshima Tactics for Total War on Islam



## Arabian Knight

Lt. Col. Matthew A. Dooley's Joint Staff Forces College presentation on "A Counter-Jihad Op Design Model" (.pdf) calls for violent measures in a war against Islam.


The U.S. military taught its future leaders that a &#8220;total war&#8221; against the world&#8217;s 1.4 billion Muslims would be necessary to protect America from Islamic terrorists, according to documents obtained by Danger Room. Among the options considered for that conflict: *using the lessons of &#8220;Hiroshima&#8221; to wipe out whole cities at once, targeting the &#8220;civilian population wherever necessary.&#8221;*

*The course, first reported by Danger Room last month and held at the Defense Department&#8217;s Joint Forces Staff College, has since been canceled by the Pentagon brass. It&#8217;s only now, however, that the details of the class have come to light. *Danger Room received hundreds of pages of course material and reference documents from a source familiar with the contents of the class.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recently ordered the entire U.S. military to scour its training material to make sure it doesn&#8217;t contain similarly hateful material, a process that is still ongoing. But the officer who delivered the lectures, Army Lt. Col. Matthew A. Dooley, still maintains his position at the Norfolk, Virginia college, pending an investigation. The commanders, lieutenant colonels, captains and colonels who sat in Dooley&#8217;s classroom, listening to the inflammatory material week after week, have now moved into higher-level assignments throughout the U.S. military.

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&#8217;s real terrorist enemy wasn&#8217;t al-Qaida &#8212; 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.

&#8220;We have now come to understand that there is no such thing as &#8216;moderate Islam,&#8217;&#8221; Dooley noted in a July 2011 presentation (.pdf), which concluded with a suggested manifesto to America&#8217;s enemies. &#8220;It is therefore time for the United States to make our true intentions clear. This barbaric ideology will no longer be tolerated. Islam must change or we will facilitate its self-destruction.&#8221;

Dooley could not be reached for comment. Joint Forces Staff College spokesman Steven Williams declined to discuss Dooley&#8217;s presentation or his status at the school. But when asked if Dooley was responsible for the course material, he responded, &#8220;I don&#8217;t know if I would classify him [Dooley] as responsible. That would be the commandant&#8221; of the school, Maj. Gen. Joseph Ward.

That makes the two-star general culpable for rather shocking material. In the same presentation, *Dooley lays out a possible four-phase war plan to carry out a forced transformation of the Islam religion. Phase three includes possible outcomes like &#8220;Islam reduced to a cult status&#8221; and &#8220;Saudi Arabia threatened with starvation.&#8221; (It&#8217;s an especially ironic suggestion, in light of today&#8217;s news that Saudi intelligence broke up the most recent al-Qaida bombing plot.)
*
*International laws protecting civilians in wartime are &#8220;no longer relevant,&#8221; Dooley continues.* *And that opens the possibility of applying &#8220;the historical precedents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki&#8221; to Islam&#8217;s holiest cities, and bringing about &#8220;Mecca and Medina['s] destruction.*&#8221;


Dooley&#8217;s ideological allies have repeatedly stated that &#8220;mainstream&#8221; Muslims are dangerous, because they&#8217;re &#8220;violent&#8221; by nature. Yet only a few of al-Qaida&#8217;s most twisted fanatics were ever caught musing about wiping out entire cities.

&#8220;Some of these actions offered for consideration here will not be seen as &#8216;political correct&#8217; in the eyes of many,&#8221; Dooley adds. &#8220;Ultimately, we can do very little in the West to decide this matter, short of waging total war.&#8221;

Dooley, who has worked at the Joint Forces Staff College since August 2010, began his eight-week class with a straightforward, two-part history of Islam. It was delivered by David Fatua, a former West Point history professor. &#8220;Unfortunately, if we left it at that, you wouldn&#8217;t have the proper balance of points of view, nor would you have an accurate view of how Islam defines itself,&#8221; Dooley told his students. Over the next few weeks, he invited in a trio of guest lecturers famous for their incendiary views of Islam.

Shireen Burki declared during the 2008 election that &#8220;Obama is bin Laden&#8217;s dream candidate.&#8221; In her Joint Forces Staff College lecture, she told students that &#8220;Islam is an Imperialist/Conquering Religion.&#8221; (.pdf)

Stephen Coughlin claimed in his 2007 master&#8217;s thesis that then-president George W. Bush&#8217;s declaration of friendship with the vast majority of the world&#8217;s Muslims had &#8220;a chilling effect on those tasked to define the enemy&#8217;s doctrine.&#8221; (.pdf) Coughlin was subsequently let go from his consulting position to the military&#8217;s Joint Staff, but he continued to lecture at the Naval War College and at the FBI&#8217;s Washington Field Office. In his talk to Dooley&#8217;s class (.pdf), Coughlin suggested that al-Qaida helped drive the overthrow of Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak and Libyan dictator Muammar Gadhafi. It was part of a scheme by Islamists to conquer the world, he added. And Coughlin mocked those who didn&#8217;t see this plot as clearly as he did, accusing them of &#8220;complexification.&#8221;

Coughlin titled his talk: &#8220;Imposing Islamic Law &#8211; or &#8211; These Aren&#8217;t the Droids Your Looking For!&#8221;

Former FBI employee John Guandolo told the conspiratorial World Net Daily website last year that Obama was only the latest president to fall under the influence of Islamic extremists. &#8220;The level of penetration in the last three administrations is deep,&#8221; Guandolo alleged. In his reference material for the Joint Forces Staff College class, Guandolo not only spoke of today&#8217;s Muslims as enemies of the West. He even justified the Crusades, writing that they &#8220;were initiated after hundreds of years of Muslim incursion into Western lands.&#8221;

Guandolo&#8217;s paper, titled &#8220;Usual Responses from the Enemy When Presented With the Truth&#8221; (.pdf), was one of hundreds of presentations, documents, videos and web links electronically distributed to the Joint Forces Staff College students. Included in that trove: a paper alleging that &#8220;it is a permanent command in Islam for Muslims to hate and despise Jews and Christians&#8221; (.pdf). So was a video lecture from Serge Trifkovic, a former professor who appeared as a defense witness in several trials of Bosnian Serb leaders convicted of war crimes, including the genocide of Muslims. A web link, titled &#8220;Watch Before This Is Pulled,&#8221; supposedly shows President Obama &#8212; the commander-in-chief of the senior officers attending the course &#8212; admitting that he&#8217;s a Muslim.

Dooley added the caveats that his views are &#8220;not the Official Policy of the United States Government&#8221; and are intended &#8220;to generate dynamic discussion and thought.&#8221; But he taught his fellow military officers that Obama&#8217;s alleged admission could well make the commander in chief some sort of traitor. &#8220;By conservative estimates,&#8221; 10 percent of the world&#8217;s Muslims, &#8220;a staggering 140 million people &#8230; hate everything you stand for and will never coexist with you, unless you submit&#8221; to Islam. He added, &#8220;Your oath as a professional soldier forces you to pick a side here.&#8221; It is unclear if Dooley&#8217;s &#8220;total war&#8221; on Muslims also applied to his &#8220;Muslim&#8221; commander in chief.

*After the Pentagon brass learned of Dooley&#8217;s presentation, the country&#8217;s top military officer, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, issued an order to every military chief and senior commander to get rid of any similar anti-Islam instructional material.* Dempsey issued the order because the White House had already instructed the entire security apparatus of the federal government &#8212; military and civilian &#8212; to revamp its counterterrorism training after learning of FBI material that demonized Islam.

*By then, Dooley had already presented his apocalyptic vision for a global religious war.* Flynn has ordered a senior officer, Army Maj. Gen. Frederick Rudesheim, to investigate how precisely Dooley managed to get away with that extended presentation in an official Defense Department-sanctioned course. The results of that review are due May 24.

Ironically, Dooley and his guest lecturers paint a dire picture of the forward march of Islamic extremism right as its foremost practitioner feared its implosion. Documents recently declassified by the U.S. government revealed Osama bin Laden fretting about al-Qaida&#8217;s brutal methods and damaged brand alienating the vast majority of Muslims from choosing to wage holy war. Little could he have known that U.S. military officers were thinking of ways to ignite one.

U.S. Military Taught Officers: Use 'Hiroshima' Tactics for 'Total War' on Islam | Danger Room | Wired.com

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## lem34

And then we have some Muslims who come on her and try to say that our corrupt leaders are right to ally or work with Americans. That is probably also the reason they do not want Muslim countries to have nuclear weapons. they want to mow defenseless Muslims down.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Stealth

"apnay ghar ka defa opar walay nay kudh apnay zemay liya hey" so no worries!

"Surah Feel"

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## VCheng

Arabian Knight said:


> ........................



One page taken out of context, and with "spys" misspelled. Yup, must be enough to go all berserk!

War games and theorizing are like that by definition. Anybody with even a small amount of faith would believe in the promise the Allah Himself protects Mecca and Medina. So what is the problem here?

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## lem34

I find it difficult to find anyone Muslim or not who could possibly accept this type of theory and war games. can you imagine if Pakistanis were planning or theorizing war games to eliminate Jews etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## regular

VCheng said:


> War games and theorizing are like that by definition. Anybody with even a small amount of faith would believe in the promise the Allah Himself protects Mecca and Medina. So what is the problem here?


Oh No Problem sir!...
We wish that they try to Nuke Macca and Medina and see happens to the whole USA or the West ...I guess we won't even see USA on the face of the world ever....that gonna be suicide for them....the Punishment of Allah SBWT is more fierce than the Nukes themselves......Anybody who don't wanna live in this world shold happily go and try an attack on the Holiest cities of the world, guarded by Allah SBWT himself.....

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## PteX

regular said:


> Oh No Problem sir!...
> We wish that they try to Nuke Macca and Medina and see happens to the whole USA or the West ...I guess we won't even see USA on the face of the world ever....that gonna be suicide for them....the Punishment of Allah SBWT is more fierce than the Nukes themselves......Anybody who don't wanna live in this world shold happily go and try an attack on the Holiest cities of the world, guarded by Allah SBWT himself.....


Sorry, but your statement is delirious. 
Only Pakistan has nukes, and they are the only one's that could do anything that would kill a few thousand Americans.
That being said, your nukes would probably kill mostly Pakistanis and Pakistan itself. They are the only superpower for a reason and they would not hesitate to completely destroy any threat against their nation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Wright

regular said:


> Oh No Problem sir!...
> We wish that they try to Nuke Macca and Medina and see happens to the whole USA or the West ...I guess we won't even see USA on the face of the world ever....that gonna be suicide for them....the Punishment of Allah SBWT is more fierce than the Nukes themselves......Anybody who don't wanna live in this world shold happily go and try an attack on the Holiest cities of the world, guarded by Allah SBWT himself.....



Here's what would happen. Arabs would go blowing each other up. Pakistan would get mad and nuke India. India would return the favour.


----------



## lem34

Wright said:


> Here's what would happen. Arabs would go blowing each other up. Pakistan would get mad and nuke India. India would return the favour.



Do not worry we got enough for India and Israel.



PteX said:


> They are the only superpower for a reason and they would not hesitate to completely destroy any threat against their nation.



Yes but lets face it HQ is in Tel Aviv. TA through Aipac has subverted American democracy and now controls America. So we in Pakistan could flatten TA. There you go. 

Also the effect of 100 odd nukes going off on this planet there is a good chance it will destroy the earth as we know it. So American will be a pyrrhic victory if that

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Wright

Aryan_B said:


> Do not worry we got enough for India and Israel.



Of course you may. I was just trying to correct that posters perception that Arab nations would be able to put up a WW2 type resistance under certain sanctions, blockades and their current lack of production facilities. 

If there is ever a total war scenario, it wont come close to the resistance the allies faced in WW2. Of course Im just going comparing US and its allies vs Arab states and Bangladesh, Pakistan.


----------



## lem34

Wright said:


> Of course you may. I was just trying to correct that posters perception that Arab nations would be able to put up a WW2 type resistance under certain sanctions, blockades and their current lack of production facilities.
> 
> If there is ever a total war scenario, it wont come close to the resistance the allies faced in WW2. Of course Im just going comparing US and its allies vs Arab states and Bangladesh, Pakistan.



The problem would be that 100 nukes may destroy the earth so there would be no winner. The other thing is what would Russia and China do?? Just sit silent?? esp China as it sees its oil supplies etc decimated would they get involved?

Also if Pakistan lobs a few at India, India might be tempted to lob a few at China so china cant take advantage of India. So China throws a few at India where would it all end


----------



## Wright

Aryan_B said:


> The problem would be that 100 nukes may destroy the earth so there would be no winner. The other thing is what would Russia and China do?? Just sit silent?? esp China as it sees its oil supplies etc decimated would they get involved?
> 
> Also if Pakistan lobs a few at India, India might be tempted to lob a few at China so china cant take advantage of India. So China throws a few at India where would it all end



Anything is possible. But The poster made it appear as if the mighty Arabs would destroy the west. I was just pointing out given the current balance of power it is far fetched. 

Also I dont know why people think Russia has always been odds with Europe and the US. 

Russia is part of the Christian "west". Much of Russian population is concentrated in the European portion of Russia.


----------



## somebozo

This was just a training document and can be called "giving the boot" at best....

Because even if a bullet is fired in the Haramin - this could mean serious repercussions in the Muslim world against the ruling elites..

Sorry if I hurt any body feeling or patriotism but I am entitled to my point of view....and internet supports free speech..


----------



## VCheng

somebozo said:


> ............
> 
> Because even if a bullet is fired in the Haramin - this could mean serious repercussions in the Muslim world against the ruling elites..
> .............



Well, on November 20, 1979, this event occurred:

Grand Mosque Seizure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> had officially left "255 pilgrims, troops and fanatics" killed and "another 560 injured ... although diplomats suggested the toll was higher." Military casualties were 127 dead and 451 injured.



Nothing happened. Still the same ruling elites!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## NeutralCitizen

Clash of civilizations ? if so how quick ? wonder what the Saudis will think of their friends ?


----------



## lem34

Coltsfan said:


> You have to be naive to believe that document.
> 
> Having said that, if US ever decides that it is in its absolute national interest to destroy the holiest of cities, there is nothing you or Allah SBWT will be able to do to save them



US is a vassal state of Israel it does not decide anything Tel Aviv does. We know you would say that because whites and Americans are your gods

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Coltsfan

Aryan_B said:


> US is a vassal state of America it does not decide anything Tel Aviv does. We know you would say that because whites and Americans are your gods



I notice you haven't refuted what I said in my post.......... I assume you agreed with me then

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## NeutralCitizen

57 Muslim countries vs the USA, preemptive strike nuke most Muslim majority from africa to middle east to central & south asia to south east asia.


----------



## lem34

I have faith in Allah. I am not a pagan. So I will continue in the belief that he is the almighty you can continue believing America is a god with your other gods if you are hindu

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Juice

Aryan_B said:


> I find it difficult to find anyone Muslim or not who could possibly accept this type of theory and war games. can you imagine if Pakistanis were planning or theorizing war games to eliminate Jews etc.



You guys do, heck, your leaders publicly proclaim it.


----------



## VCheng

Aryan_B said:


> *US *is a vassal state of *America *..................



Wait! What? 

Does that that even make sense? I think you are confused at best, or blinded by irrationality at worst.

USA is NOT controlled by _any _other nation as you keep on harping.

=====================

Edit: Please see Post #18 by Coltsfan too.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## lem34

Juice said:


> You guys do, heck, your leaders publicly proclaim it.



That's rubbish Juice. I would never countenance the genocide of any peoples. neither do our leaders. You are clearly in need of some corrective therapy today lol.



VCheng said:


> Wait! What?
> 
> Does that that even make sense? I think you are confused at best, or blinded by irrationality at worst.
> 
> USA is NOT controlled by _any _other nation as you keep on harping. cheng is mixed up



Why have you altered what I posted?? you have replied with my quote and changed my quote like I have to yours here??

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Juice

Shall I hunt for videos of Arab leader foaming about the destruction of isreal, of driving Jews into the sea, slaughtering them?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

Aryan_B said:


> ............
> 
> Why have you altered what I posted?? you have replied with my quote and changed my quote like I have to yours here??



Your post was quoted in its entirety above too by Coltsfan (Post #18). Please check before lying so blatantly.

(Of course, any Mod can see you are lying with an Edits audit trail.)

========================

Back on topic:

Wargames do not mean much as this case shows.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lem34

Bit off topic but by the way Juice we have had some classic american threads whilst you have been away check this out:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...legalizes-sodomy-bestiality-u-s-military.html

You will love it lol



VCheng said:


> Your post was quoted in its entirety above too by Coltsfan (Post #18). Please check before lying so blatantly.
> 
> (Of course, any Mod can see you are lying with an Edits audit trail.)



So what? You lie all the time. Its an American trait that I was copying of you. Anyway tell me why are you so obsessed to get one over me?? I could not give a toss?

As that proper American Juice (not a mango or freshie of the boat American) appreciates a wind up and a sense of humour

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## The SC

It is just a scenario, but can become real if the US vital interests are harmed or at danger of being harmed even by a false flag Zionist regime trying to do that and hiding behind an angel's name, so that the gullible Christian extremists will automatically point their fingers at Muslims and Islam.




> Dooley added the caveats that his views are &#8220;not the Official Policy of the United States Government&#8221; and are intended &#8220;to generate dynamic discussion and thought.&#8221; But he taught his fellow military officers that Obama&#8217;s alleged admission could well make the commander in chief some sort of traitor. &#8220;By conservative estimates,&#8221; 10 percent of the world&#8217;s Muslims, &#8220;a staggering 140 million people &#8230; hate everything you stand for and will never coexist with you, unless you submit&#8221; to Islam. *He added, &#8220;Your oath as a professional soldier forces you to pick a side here.&#8221;* It is unclear if Dooley&#8217;s &#8220;total war&#8221; on Muslims also applied to his &#8220;Muslim&#8221; commander in chief.



This guy ignores the fact that the Muslims took an oath to God, to submit to his will and to fight till death for his religion of Justice and good will against any wannabe worldly power, if it goes beyond its limits, so, to tell you the truth we are not scared.
Our ancestors went to the farthest lands possible to defend the oppressed most of the time upon invitation or calls of distress from Christians themselves fighting between them or oppressing their own people, otherwise our invitation to them and others to Islam was peaceful and never violent, until they started violence themselves, and Islam prevailed thanks to its call to goodness.
By God 's will it will prevail till the last day of life on earth as God says, YAWMO ALKIYAMA. or the day of judgement.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

Aryan_B said:


> .................
> 
> So what? You lie all the time. *Its an American trait that I was copying of you*. Anyway tell me why are you so obsessed to get one over me?? I could not give a toss?



You are becoming what you profess to hate?! OMG! 

I merely wish to confine myself to discussing the topic:

Wargames and theorizing should not be used as an excuse to bash USA in this case. Only people rendered irrational by hatred can do that, as exemplified by certain posts above.

QED.

PS: I don't lie.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lem34

VCheng said:


> You are becoming what you profess to hate?! OMG!
> 
> I merely wish to confine myself to discussing the topic:
> 
> Wargames and theorizing should not be used as an excuse to bash USA in this case. Only people rendered irrational by hatred can do that, as exemplified by certain posts above.
> 
> QED.
> 
> PS: I don't lie.



satire mate learn the meaningsatire. I am sure that if any country had war games eliminating Jews there would be a big fuss. And Americans would be the first to make a big fuss because Tel Aviv dictates to them. I am now going tro watch the latest episode of that American drama House just so I can watch what I dont like



VCheng said:


> PS: I don't lie.



Yes you do. I will go into it maybe tomorrow. you would do anything to harm Pakistan

Oh and did you notice the real American the proper American thanked me in post 24



Juice said:


> Shall I hunt for videos of Arab leader foaming about the destruction of isreal, of driving Jews into the sea, slaughtering them?



Mate you are so typical American do you not know Pakistanis are not Arabs lol

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

Aryan_B said:


> ......... I am sure that if any country had war games eliminating Jews there would be a big fuss. And Americans would be the first to make a big fuss because Tel Aviv dictates to them. ...........



Actually, even USA carries out wargames with various scenarios leading to the destruction if Israel all the time. Such exercises are used to expand and refine strategies continuously. No fuss here.

BTW, many other countries do the same too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juice

Aryan_B said:


> satire mate learn the meaningsatire. I am sure that if any country had war games eliminating Jews there would be a big fuss. And Americans would be the first to make a big fuss because Tel Aviv dictates to them. I am now going tro watch the latest episode of that American drama House just so I can watch what I dont like
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you do. I will go into it maybe tomorrow. you would do anything to harm Pakistan
> 
> Oh and did you notice the real American the proper American thanked me in post 24
> 
> 
> 
> Mate you are so typical American do you not know Pakistanis are not Arabs lol



I know Pakis aren't Arab, neither are Iranians, we were talking of Mecca, which is in Saudi Arabia, which IS Arab.


----------



## Black Widow

Aryan_B said:


> The problem would be that 100 nukes may destroy the earth so there would be no winner. The other thing is what would Russia and China do?? Just sit silent?? esp China as it sees its oil supplies etc decimated would they get involved?
> 
> Also if Pakistan lobs a few at India, India might be tempted to lob a few at China so china cant take advantage of India. So China throws a few at India where would it all end


 

are u crazy? what non sense you are typing? you are lucky tht i am not reporting this post. kindly stick to topic. India has nothing to do if war against Islam will be self-imposed by Pakistan.

we will not enter into any war till our boundries are safe. And we will not allow USA to use nuke on Pak as it will affect indian environment. Pakistan is walking distance from India, nuclear radiation will affect indians, so we will request USA to use conventional warheads.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lem34

Juice said:


> I know Pakis aren't Arab, neither are Iranians, we were talking of Mecca, which is in Saudi Arabia, which IS Arab.



yea but you said my leaders talk about Israel destruction.



Black Widow said:


> are u crazy? what non sense you are typing? you are lucky tht i am not reporting this post. kindly stick to topic. India has nothing to do if war against Islam will be self-imposed by Pakistan.
> 
> we will not enter into any war till our boundries are safe. And we will not allow USA to use nuke on Pak as it will affect indian environment. Pakistan is walking distance from India, nuclear radiation will affect indians, so we will request USA to use conventional warheads.


 

You will ask america to use conventional weapons to commit genocide? Mate i was suggesting that if America decided to do that to Muslims. Pakistan now prob has the means to destroy the earth

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Aryan_B said:


> Pakistan now prob has the means to destroy the earth



Let's not get too high on our horses.
Bullshit article anyway.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## PteX

Some people here seem to have never heard of ABM's.


----------



## VCheng

Aryan_B said:


> ..................Pakistan now prob has the means to destroy the earth



It would be prudent not to boast of that ability even it really existed. It only serves to highlight the increasing dangers posed by a intractably problematic country.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juice

I thought Pakistan only had fission weapons, 200 of these will create severe local problems, not destroy the earth.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

Juice said:


> I thought Pakistan only had fission weapons, 200 of these will create severe local problems, not destroy the earth.



There is an active program to develop thermonuclear weapons too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUz

In the below post , a small glimpse of what was taught to U.S military officers is presented ... According to *Army Gen. Martin Dempsey*, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , some lower-ranked Army officer (identity kept unknown) blew the whistle and contacted the high command and told them about anti-Islamic Christian-rightist rhetoric being taught to the soldiers and officers of the U.S military ...

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

*The U.S. military taught its future leaders that a &#8220;total war&#8221; against the world&#8217;s 1.4 billion (1.7 billion actually) Muslims would be necessary to protect America from Islamic terrorists, according to documents obtained by Danger Room. Among the options considered for that conflict: using the lessons of &#8220;Hiroshima&#8221; to wipe out whole cities at once, targeting the &#8220;civilian population wherever necessary.&#8221;*

*&#8220;We have now come to understand that there is no such thing as &#8216;moderate Islam,&#8217;&#8221; said Lt. Col. Dooley, which concluded with a suggested manifesto to America&#8217;s enemies. &#8220;It is therefore time for the United States to make our true intentions clear. This barbaric ideology will no longer be tolerated. Islam must change or we will facilitate its self-destruction.&#8221;*

In the same presentation, Dooley lays out a possible four-phase war plan to carry out a forced transformation of the Islam religion. Phase three includes possible outcomes like &#8220;Islam reduced to a cult status&#8221; and &#8220;Saudi Arabia threatened with starvation &#8221; and *destruction of Mecca and Medina (hence reducing Islam to a "cult" status)*

international laws protecting civilians in wartime are &#8220;no longer relevant,&#8221; Dooley continues. And that opens the possibility of applying &#8220;the historical precedents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki&#8221; to Islam&#8217;s holiest cities, and bringing about &#8220;Mecca and Medina['s] destruction.&#8221;

For the complete and detailed article , go to : 

U.S. Military Taught Officers: Use 'Hiroshima' Tactics for 'Total War' on Islam | Danger Room | Wired.com

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

*This is the actual presentation that was being taught to U.S Army officers !!!!!** This is EXACTLY what Nazis learned about Jews in their military academy. See it by yourselves*.


http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2012/05/dooley_counter_jihad_op_design_v11.pdf

It's an organized campaign to dehumanize Muslims so that their brutal persecution will be "accepted" by the society! Exactly what Jews faced at the hands of Nazis. Anti-Islamic sites put up all kind of lies by twisting Qur'anic verses , quoting fake/unauthenticated Hadiths etc and make people believe that Islam is totalitarian world-dominating ideology and every Muslim is a hidden "supporter" of it. Muslims are commanded to tell lies to propagate their cause etc etc etc ...All such baseless lies and propaganda are being perpetrated by Western media , institutions , militaries etc ... Conservative Christianity in the Western establishment wants to eliminate its old enemy , Islam .

No wonder American soldiers rape 6 year old Muslim girls , piss on Afghans' face , burn Qur'ans and what not? The guy who is responsible for all these 'teachings of resistance against Islam' , Lt Col Dooley , is STILL serving in the Army with honor but he has been told to not to "teach" this again...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Coltsfan

AUz said:


> In the below post , a small glimpse of what was taught to U.S military officers is presented ... According to *Army Gen. Martin Dempsey*, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , some lower-ranked Army officer (identity kept unknown) blew the whistle and contacted the high command and told them about anti-Islamic Christian-rightist rhetoric being taught to the soldiers and officers of the U.S military ...
> 
> ----------------------------
> 
> *The U.S. military taught its future leaders that a total war against the worlds 1.4 billion (1.7 billion actually) Muslims would be necessary to protect America from Islamic terrorists, according to documents obtained by Danger Room. Among the options considered for that conflict: using the lessons of Hiroshima to wipe out whole cities at once, targeting the civilian population wherever necessary.*
> 
> *We have now come to understand that there is no such thing as moderate Islam, said Lt. Col. Dooley, which concluded with a suggested manifesto to Americas enemies. It is therefore time for the United States to make our true intentions clear. This barbaric ideology will no longer be tolerated. Islam must change or we will facilitate its self-destruction.*
> 
> In the same presentation, Dooley lays out a possible four-phase war plan to carry out a forced transformation of the Islam religion. Phase three includes possible outcomes like Islam reduced to a cult status and Saudi Arabia threatened with starvation  and *destruction of Mecca and Medina (hence reducing Islam to a "cult" status)*
> 
> international laws protecting civilians in wartime are no longer relevant, Dooley continues. And that opens the possibility of applying the historical precedents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki to Islams holiest cities, and bringing about Mecca and Medina['s] destruction.
> 
> For the complete and detailed article , go to :
> 
> U.S. Military Taught Officers: Use 'Hiroshima' Tactics for 'Total War' on Islam | Danger Room | Wired.com
> 
> ----------------------------------------
> 
> *This is the actual presentation that was being taught to U.S Army officers !!!!!** This is EXACTLY what Nazis learned about Jews in their military academy. See it by yourselves*.
> 
> 
> http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2012/05/dooley_counter_jihad_op_design_v11.pdf
> 
> It's an organized campaign to dehumanize Muslims so that their brutal persecution will be "accepted" by the society! Exactly what Jews faced at the hands of Nazis. Anti-Islamic sites put up all kind of lies by twisting Qur'anic verses , quoting fake/unauthenticated Hadiths etc and make people believe that Islam is totalitarian world-dominating ideology and every Muslim is a hidden "supporter" of it. Muslims are commanded to tell lies to propagate their cause etc etc etc ...All such baseless lies and propaganda are being perpetrated by Western media , institutions , militaries etc ... Conservative Christianity in the Western establishment wants to eliminate its old enemy , Islam .
> 
> No wonder American soldiers rape 6 year old Muslim girls , piss on Afghans' face , burn Qur'ans and what not? The guy who is responsible for all these 'teachings of resistance against Islam' , *Lt Col Dooley , is STILL serving in the Army with honor but he has been told to not to "teach" this again...*



So what do you propose US Army should do with him? 

What is the "proper punishment" for having the audacity to speak about destroying Mecca and Medina according to you?


----------



## Juice

When I see the name "ColtsFan", I think, "now there is a guy immune to abuse! Sooo used to disappointment."

(PS...it is hard not to fall into Ltc. Dooley's mindset, you have to constantly remind yourself that it is a minority of Muslims that are like that, even if it is a large minority. Trouble is, the moderates don't speak out. I know why of course, if you feel under siege you tend to close ranks and even symathise with the radicals, just look at Germany and the Nazis)


----------



## Coltsfan

Juice said:


> When I see the name "ColtsFan", I think, "now there is a guy immune to abuse! Sooo used to disappointment."



Isn't that the definition of word "fan".......... rooted in "fanatic"? 



> (PS...it is hard not to fall into Ltc. Dooley's mindset, you have to constantly remind yourself that it is a minority of Muslims that are like that, even if it is a large minority. Trouble is, the moderates don't speak out. I know why of course, if you feel under siege you tend to close ranks and even symathise with the radicals, just look at Germany and the Nazis)



How can Muslims all over the world not feel under siege when they are constantly being fed false propaganda by radicals, and moderates have no balls to stand up to them. 

So scared are Muslims that even the land created for Muslims they live in perpetual fear

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rod of God

Aryan_B said:


> ...Yes but lets face it HQ is in Tel Aviv. TA through Aipac has subverted American democracy and now controls America.



Uh-Oh !! We got 'one of 'them' in the house !!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## VCheng

Rod of God said:


> Uh-Oh !! We got 'one of 'them' in the house !!!



The one that came with the absolute gem _"US is a vassal state of America"_? 

At least the entertainment value should be appreciated.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Don Jaguar

Juice said:


> I thought Pakistan only had fission weapons, 200 of these will create severe local problems, not destroy the earth.



Where did we said that we are thinking to destroy the world. Hahahahahahaha

Wait a minute do you watch fox news?


----------



## AUz

Coltsfan said:


> So what do you propose US Army should do with him?
> 
> What is the "proper punishment" for having the audacity to speak about destroying Mecca and Medina according to you?



No , his "views" about destroying Mecca/Madina aren't the problem. The problem is the propaganda and anti-Islamic Christian missionary stuff he is spreading in the Army of United States. Such lies and propaganda targeting one group is not acceptable in the U.S military. 

Just like that lunatic Christian general , who use to preach that U.S Army is a Christian Army and that "his god" was true while god of Muslims as not etc etc , was "retired" from the Army , this guy should also be atleast suspended.


----------



## AUz

Coltsfan said:


> So what do you propose US Army should do with him?
> 
> What is the "proper punishment" for having the audacity to speak about destroying Mecca and Medina according to you?



No , his "views" about destroying Mecca/Madina aren't the problem. The problem is the propaganda and anti-Islamic Christian missionary stuff he is spreading in the Army of United States. Such lies and propaganda targeting one group is not acceptable in the U.S military. 

Just like that lunatic Christian general , who use to preach that U.S Army is a Christian Army and that "his god" was true while god of Muslims as not etc etc , was "retired" from the Army , this guy should also be atleast suspended.


----------



## Juice

Don Jaguar said:


> Where did we said that we are thinking to destroy the world. Hahahahahahaha
> 
> Wait a minute do you watch fox news?
> 
> Read the few previous post, Einstien


----------



## IbnAlwaled

Wright said:


> Of course you may. I was just trying to correct that posters perception that Arab nations would be able to put up a WW2 type resistance under certain sanctions, blockades and their current lack of production facilities.
> 
> If there is ever a total war scenario, it wont come close to the resistance the allies faced in WW2. Of course Im just going comparing US and its allies vs Arab states and Bangladesh, Pakistan.


Mecca and madina are not for Arabs only genius. You would be in war wit 1.5 billion people.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## regular

PteX said:


> Sorry, but your statement is delirious. Only Pakistan has nukes, and they are the only one's that could do anything that would kill a few thousand Americans.
> That being said, your nukes would probably kill mostly Pakistanis and Pakistan itself. They are the only superpower for a reason and they would not hesitate to completely destroy any threat against their nation.


Yes! my statement is very delirious cuz I know if any country including US tries to Nukes Mecca or Medina thats end for that country without any doubt....I would be very delighted that USA or Israel try that experiment very happily at least there would be nomore USA or Israel on the face of the earth ever except within the stories for the coming generations....And plz don't think that Pakistani Nukes or Pakistan can do anything about that cuz Pakistan can't even save itself from the attacks of the US on its territory every day.........and I also know that the ruling elite/secret society of the US is full aware that they will never be able to destroy Mecca and Medina cuz of the Secret power of God/Allah Subhnaho-Wata-Alah is protecting and defnding those holy cities in the world.......

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## regular

Coltsfan said:


> You have to be naive to believe that document.
> 
> Having said that, if US ever decides that it is in its absolute national interest to destroy the holiest of cities, there is nothing you or Allah SBWT will be able to do to save them
> It wasn't an infidel who tried to seize control, so that doesn't count.


Oh Okay then tell USA to move ahead , what they waitin for???? scared of something, I guess???.Let the whole world see what happens to their @$$z down there........

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juice

regular said:


> Yes! my statement is very delirious cuz I know if any country including US tries to Nukes Mecca or Medina thats end for that country without any doubt....I would be very delighted that USA or Israel try that experiment very happily at least there would be nomore USA or Israel on the face of the earth ever except within the stories for the coming generations....And plz don't think that Pakistani Nukes or Pakistan can do anything about that cuz Pakistan can't even save itself from the attacks of the US on its territory every day.........and I also know that the ruling elite/secret society of the US is full aware that they will never be able to destroy Mecca and Medina cuz of the Secret power of God/Allah Subhnaho-Wata-Alah is protecting and defnding those holy cities in the world.......



Like he protected Jerusalem?


----------



## AUz

Juice said:


> Like he protected Jerusalem?



Gods doesn't protect anything. Remember the Christianity's "holiest" thing , _the true cross _ , that was paraded on the streets of Damascus after Saladin's forces took it from defeated Christian Armies of Europe/Jerusalem? Turkish invasion and conquering of Constantinople and converting _Hagia Sophia_ into a Mosque? Its like converting holiest of the mosques into Churches...

But America , or anyone else for that matter , would never "invade" Mecca and Medina. Forget about billions of Muslims around the world--- 60 million Muslims in the West and 7 million in the U.S would be ANGERED ! What can be the "strategic" purpose of invading Mecca?


----------



## TaimiKhan

US military class suspended for its view on Islam | DAWN.COM

WASHINGTON: A course for US military officers has been teaching that America&#8217;s enemy is Islam in general, not just terrorists, and suggesting that the country might ultimately have to obliterate the Islamic holy cities of Makkah and Medina without regard for civilian deaths, following World War II precedents of the nuclear attack on Hiroshima or the allied firebombing of Dresden.

The Pentagon suspended the course in late April when a student objected to the material.

The FBI also changed some agent training last year after discovering that it, too, was critical of Islam.

The teaching in the military course was counter to repeated assertions by US officials over the last decade that the US is at war against extremists &#8212; not the religion.

&#8220;They hate everything you stand for and will never coexist with you, unless you submit,&#8221; the instructor, Army. Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley, said in a presentation last July for the course at Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, Va. The college, for professional military members, teaches midlevel officers and government civilians on subjects related to planning and executing war.

Dooley also presumed, for the purposes of his theoretical war plan, that the Geneva Conventions that set standards of armed conflict, are &#8220;no longer relevant.&#8221;

He adds: &#8220;This would leave open the option once again of taking war to a civilian population wherever necessary (the historical precedents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki being applicable&#8230.&#8221;

His war plan suggests possible outcomes such as &#8220;Saudi Arabia threatened with starvation &#8230; Islam reduced to cult status,&#8221; and the Muslim holy cities of Makkah and Medina in Saudi Arabia &#8220;destroyed.&#8221;

A copy of the presentation was obtained and posted online by Wired.com&#8217;s Danger Room blog. The college didn&#8217;t respond to The Associated Press&#8217; requests for copies of the documents, but a Pentagon spokesman authenticated the documents. Dooley still works for the college, but is no longer teaching, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said.

Dooley refused to comment to the AP, saying &#8220;Can&#8217;t talk to you, sir,&#8221; and hanging up when reached by telephone at his office Thursday.

A summary of Dooley&#8217;s military service record provided by Army Human Resources Command at Fort Knox, Ky., shows that he was commissioned as a second lieutenant upon graduation from the US Military Academy at West Point in May 1994. He has served overseas tours in Germany, Bosnia, Kuwait and Iraq. He has numerous awards including a Bronze Star Medal, the fourth-highest military award for bravery, heroism or meritorious service.

In what he termed a model for a campaign to force a transformation of Islam, Dooley called for &#8220;a direct ideological and philosophical confrontation with Islam,&#8221; with the presumption that Islam is an ideology rather than just a religion. He further asserted that Islam has already declared war on the West and the US specifically.

&#8220;It is therefore illogical&#8221; to continue with the current US strategy &#8212; which Dooley said presumes there is a way of finding common ground with Islamic religious leaders &#8212; without &#8220;waging near &#8216;total war,&#8217;&#8221; he wrote.

The course on Islam was an elective taught since 2004 and not part of the required core curriculum. It was offered five times a year, with about 20 students each time, meaning roughly 800 students have taken the course over the years.

Though Dooley has been teaching at the college since August 2010, it was unclear when he took on that particular class, called &#8220;Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism.&#8221;

The joint staff suspended the course after it had received a student complaint, and within days Dempsey ordered all service branches to review their training to ensure other courses don&#8217;t use anti-Islamic material.

On Thursday, Dempsey said the material in the Norfolk course was counter to American &#8220;appreciation for religious freedom and cultural awareness.&#8221;

&#8220;It was just totally objectionable, against our values, and it wasn&#8217;t academically sound,&#8221; Dempsey said when asked about the matter at a Pentagon news conference. &#8220;This wasn&#8217;t about &#8230; pushing back on liberal thought; this was objectionable, academically irresponsible.&#8221;

In his July 2011 presentation on a &#8220;counterjihad,&#8221; Dooley asserted that the rise of what he called a &#8220;military Islam/Islamist resurgence&#8221; compels the United States to consider extreme measures, &#8220;unconstrained by fears of political incorrectness.&#8221;

He described his purpose as generating &#8220;dynamic discussion and thought,&#8221; while noting that his ideas and proposals are not official US government policy and cannot be found in any current official Defense Department documents.

A Pentagon inquiry is seeking to determine whether someone above the professor&#8217;s level is supposed to approve course materials and whether that approval process was followed in this case, said Col. Dave Lapan, spokesman for Dempsey.

The problem of negative portrayals of Islam in federal government is not new. A six-month review the FBI launched into agent training material uncovered 876 offensive or inaccurate pages that had been used in 392 presentations, including a PowerPoint slide that said the bureau can sometimes bend or suspend the law in counterterror investigations.

That is significant because ever since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the FBI has stressed the importance of working with leaders in the Muslim community as an important part of the battle against terrorism. The FBI review began last September after Wired.com reported that the FBI had discontinued a lecture in which the instructor told agent trainees in Virginia that the more devout a Muslim is, the more likely he is to be violent.

************************************************************************

What else justification is required to not to hate Americans.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## krash

VCheng said:


> You are becoming what you profess to hate?! OMG!
> 
> I merely wish to confine myself to discussing the topic:
> 
> Wargames and theorizing should not be used as an excuse to bash USA in this case. Only people rendered irrational by hatred can do that, as exemplified by certain posts above.
> 
> QED.
> 
> PS: I don't lie.


 
What this incident shows are underlying, far proliferated feelings of baseless and senseless militant hatred amongst the general American population vis-a-vis Islam; fanaticism, so to speak. Pun intended.



VCheng said:


> It would be prudent not to boast of that ability even it really existed. It only serves to highlight the increasing dangers posed by a intractably problematic country.


 
Dangers posed to the foes of the said "intractably problematic" country. Serves the purpose well.



Coltsfan said:


> So what do you propose US Army should do with him?
> 
> What is the "proper punishment" for having the audacity to speak about destroying Mecca and Medina according to you?



Exactly what it asked of the Pakistani army with regards to the 'taliban sympathizers' in it's ranks.



Juice said:


> When I see the name "ColtsFan", I think, "now there is a guy immune to abuse! Sooo used to disappointment."
> 
> (PS...it is hard not to fall into Ltc. Dooley's mindset, you have to constantly remind yourself that it is a minority of Muslims that are like that, even if it is a large minority. Trouble is, the moderates don't speak out. I know why of course, if you feel under siege you tend to close ranks and even symathise with the radicals, just look at Germany and the Nazis)



Not quite. The 'moderates', as you put it, have been yelling out at the top of their lungs since the start of these shenanigans. There are those who see them, hear them but tell of them otherwise and then there are those who eat it all up. Its a very simple game. But you wouldn't "believe" me. Your a player in it yourself, aren't you.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SQ8

BTW.. anybody remember the final scenes in Angelina Jolie's _SALT_?
Where Mecca is being targeted??
There is an underlying tone within this war of the crusades, as much as it is denied.. those neo-cons that started it.. thought of nothing else.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## VCheng

TaimiKhan said:


> ................................
> 
> ************************************************************************
> 
> What else justification is required to not to hate Americans.



Hate does not resolve hate: EDUCATION resolves hate.


----------



## Imran Khan

*Top U.S. General Condemns Anti-Islamic Training Course*

Chairman of the U.S.Joints Chief of Staff General Martin Dempsey condemned the course.

May 11, 2012
The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff has condemned a* Defense Department training course that taught troops to prepare for a "total war" against Islam.*

Army General Martin Dempsey said on May 10 that the course was "totally objectionable" and "wasn't academically sound."

The optional course for high-level officers at the Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, Virginia, proposed waging a war against Muslim civilians "whenever necessary" and used the World War II-era fire-bombing of Dresden and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples.

*The course reportedly taught that nuclear attacks against the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina could be acceptable.*

The Pentagon suspended the course last month after a student complained and launched an investigation into how it came to be included in the school's curriculum.

The responsible instructor, Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley, has been suspended from teaching.

Lecturers told students to think of themselves as an anti-Islamic "resistance movement."

Dempsey added on that a letter had been sent to each branch of the U.S. military and all regional command structures ordering them to review training materials for anti-Islamic content, in correspondence with a November 2011 directive from U.S. President Barack Obama.

That order came following disclosure of anti-Islamic content in training materials used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Justice Department, and the military.

The Defense Department plans to issue a report on its investigation by the end of the month.

Top U.S. General Condemns Anti-Islamic Training Course


----------



## SQ8

VCheng said:


> Hate does not resolve hate: EDUCATION resolves hate.



What about education meant to incite hate?
education on blowing up Mecca and Medina.. .. brings hate.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## VCheng

Oscar said:


> What about education meant to incite hate?
> education on blowing up Mecca and Medina.. .. brings hate.



That course was not an incitement to hate; it was merely a war games course, as part of an ongoing process of theorizing different scenarios. 

Given what happened in 1979, what would happen if some Jewish radicals takes over Masjid Al-Haram, for example, is another scenario one should think about, or even an Iranian group, or a third party, say Boku Haram or Al-Shabab, and plants explosives right up to a low yield nuclear weapon. What then? It is only prudent to be prepared.

Besides, if one truly believes that Allah Himself has promised to protect Mecca and Medina, there should be not reason to worry about their safety, is there?

Don't be so quick to hate.


----------



## SQ8

VCheng said:


> *Besides, if one truly believes that Allah Himself has promised to protect Mecca and Medina, there should be not reason to worry about their safety, is there?*
> 
> Don't be so quick to hate.



yet in this case the scenario specifically targeted Mecca and Medina with the intention that they were revered by Muslims.
Its not about hate.. its about dual intentions.. 
At one point there are people like you.. successful Muslims in the US contributing to the US economy.. a testament to the vision of the original founding fathers of the US. Yet, here in the nation's premier military academy there are scenario's being taught and dreamed up to attack the very thing Muslims hold sacred.. Muslims who are as much a part of the US as I dare say.. the cherokee's are.. and for all other Muslims seeking the American dream.. a reminder that whatever they try for, they will be considered outsiders and not welcome.
after all.. even if by mistake.. an 18 month old baby was taken off a flight for being on the "no-fly" list?? Does common sense not prevail among those types that make such errors and preach such anti-Islam scenarios? 
After all.. its not about hurting a certain race.. so that the Arabs in the US may feel queasy because Arab countries are under attack.. 
This is about targeting a religion whose adherents exceed a billion humans.. over 2 million in the US alone..What about the backlash this will trigger worldwide if some terrorist organization decides to use this to their advantage?
I do think this act does not need defence.. rather a strong protest by an organization such as CAIR


FYI
Allah has promised to protect Mecca.. thats his house.. No need to worry our heads about it
Medina is the home of our prophet .. and its a Muslims responsibility to protect it...
Which is why back in the 60's .. the Saudi's told an over eager Pakistani General with a presentation on "the defence of Makkah" to stop after 5 minutes.. since Makkah is not their responsibility, and hence they dont need to be bothered about it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## hunter_hunted

Now I know how director of the movie THE SALT came up with this idea


----------



## Respect4Respect01

Wright said:


> Here's what would happen. Arabs would go blowing each other up. Pakistan would get mad and nuke India. India would return the favour.



stop bringing india in for no reason,

heres what would happen, all Muslim countries would get together and tear apart usa and its allies, and usa is already scared of Iran, they cant handle taliban, and im pretty sure they are scared of war now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

Oscar said:


> yet in this case the scenario specifically targeted Mecca and Medina with the intention that they were revered by Muslims..........................



So what?

If there is a military exercise about how to defeat terrorism, and someone says "Kill them all, and nuke Mecca while you are at it!", that does make NOT it an intention, but a point for discussion. The final answer will always be "No, we can't kill them all, and are you out of your mind to consider nuking Mecca?".

Then you move on the next scenario.


----------



## BronzePlaque

VCheng said:


> That course was not an incitement to hate; it was merely a war games course, as part of an ongoing process of theorizing different scenarios.
> 
> Don't be so quick to hate.



If it was merely a war games course( btw what kind of sick mind would theorize vaporizing Mecca and Medina ) he wouldnt be suspended from lecturing at the college

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## VCheng

BronzePlaque said:


> If it was merely a war games course( btw what kind of sick mind would theorize vaporizing Mecca and Medina ) he wouldnt be suspended from lecturing at the college



It was merely a course, and the suspension, while an investigation is done, shows that sanity still prevails. That is all.


----------



## King Solomon

This is quite a nasty thing to be taught in a military school.

But it is true that if US wishes, they could nuke Mecca and get away with it. Because Muslims don't have any weapon or nuke with delivery system by which they can target US. Maybe they will face some homegrown insurgency but that is it.

Check my other topic which reports about de-classified documents where US was preparing for a full-scale invasion of Saudi arabia in 1970s. Without the petrodollar agreement, we could be seeing Mecca/Medina nuked or destroyed in that invasion.

Maybe the petrodollar was for good after all.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Black Widow

This is what we should read in this report

*
Pentagon condemns 'war on Islam' US training class
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen Martin Dempsey, said the course was "totally objectionable" and "against our values".
The Voluntary course has now been suspended
He added that he had ordered a full investigation when the course was suspended in April after one of the students objected to the material.


*

What we are discussing

*Military Taught Officers Hiroshima Tactics for Total War on Islam*


Source: BBC News - Pentagon condemns 'war on Islam' US training class


----------



## babajees

WASHINGTON  A course for U.S. military officers has been teaching that America's enemy is Islam in general, not just terrorists, and suggesting that the country might ultimately have to obliterate the Islamic holy cities of Mecca and Medina without regard for civilian deaths, following World War II precedents of the nuclear attack on Hiroshima or the allied firebombing of Dresden.


"They hate everything you stand for and will never coexist with you, unless you submit," the instructor, Army. Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley, said in a presentation last July for the course at Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, Va. The college, for professional military members, teaches midlevel officers and government civilians on subjects related to planning and executing war.
Dooley also presumed, for the purposes of his theoretical war plan, that the Geneva Conventions that set standards of armed conflict, are "no longer relevant."


Read more: Military class suspended for view on Islam | Fox News


_(P.S. I can't seem to post in World Affairs or US defence hence posting here. Mods are requested to shift this to the appropriate forum)
_


----------



## TrMhMt

These Yankees are insane !!!

Or 13 years old a boy makes these plans ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Secur

VCheng said:


> War games and theorizing are like that by definition. Anybody with even a small amount of faith would believe in the promise the Allah Himself protects Mecca and Medina. So what is the problem here?



Supporting even the heinous acts done by you country in the past !

Doesn't come as a surprise to me that you are doing it yet again ...



VCheng said:


> So what?
> 
> If there is a military exercise about how to defeat terrorism, and someone says "Kill them all, and nuke Mecca while you are at it!", that does make NOT it an intention, but a point for discussion.



Do you understand what even discussing such a scenario mean ?


----------



## VCheng

Secur said:


> ................
> 
> Do you understand what even discussing such a scenario mean ?



Yes, very clearly, perhaps even more than you could ever suspect.


----------



## Zabaniyah

I guess we aren't the only ones suffering from extremism


----------



## Zabaniyah

We are screwed...


----------



## regular

The US General is reali smart guy he understands the consequences of such course within their departments.....cuz that will just lead to the total destruction of the mankind and nothing more. At least the general is not fanatic like that lunatic Lt. Colonel teaching that crazy coarse.....


----------



## SamranAli

and then they label us what exactly they are themselves.


----------



## CENTCOM

This was an elective course that was taught in the Joint Professional Military Education II (JPME II) curriculum at Joint Forces Staff College (JFSC). When concerns were raised by a student and thus brought to the notice of the military leadership, the course in question was suspended. The elective course, entitled called Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism was eight weeks long and met weekly when in session. The course has been taught to some US military students at JFSC since 2004 and is conducted five times a year. The course has been suspended pending the results of a preliminary inquiry of course content and materials to ensure that they meet the mission of the college and are in keeping with Department of Defense policies regarding professional military education. A determination on the future of the course will be made at that point. Till then we should refrain from making any judgments. 

I would like to point out here that the United States is not at war with Islam or Muslims. Our war is against any terrorists who are aiming to kill innocents and disturb world peace. There are many Muslims serving in all facets of society in the United States including the US government and the military. President Obama, while addressing Muslims all over the world from Al-Azhar in Cairo,said, I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles  principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. We still strongly stand by our Presidents statements. 


Maj David Nevers
DET-United States Central Command
U.S. Central Command

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lem34

CENTCOM said:


> This was an elective course that was taught in the Joint Professional Military Education II (JPME II) curriculum at Joint Forces Staff College (JFSC). When concerns were raised by a student and thus brought to the notice of the military leadership, the course in question was suspended. The elective course, entitled called &#8220;Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism&#8221; was eight weeks long and met weekly when in session. The course has been taught to some US military students at JFSC since 2004 and is conducted five times a year. The course has been suspended pending the results of a preliminary inquiry of course content and materials to ensure that they meet the mission of the college and are in keeping with Department of Defense policies regarding professional military education. A determination on the future of the course will be made at that point. Till then we should refrain from making any judgments.
> 
> I would like to point out here that the United States is not at war with Islam or Muslims. Our war is against any terrorists who are aiming to kill innocents and disturb world peace. There are many Muslims serving in all facets of society in the United States including the US government and the military. President Obama, while addressing Muslims all over the world from Al-Azhar in Cairo,said, &#8220;I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles &#8211; principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.&#8221; We still strongly stand by our President&#8217;s statements.
> 
> 
> Maj David Nevers
> DET-United States Central Command
> U.S. Central Command



David imagine the outcry if you were to have a similar course about Jews???


----------



## laiqs@mi

Maj David...
if same is taught in Pak army course about pentagon or White hosue what would be america's reaction???


----------



## VCheng

laiqs@mi said:


> Maj David...
> if same is taught in Pak army course about pentagon or White hosue what would be america's reaction???



Actually, countries that already have the means to attack Washington, such as Russia and China, do carry out such wargames. If Pakistan one day has the resources to be able to attack mainland USA, then I am sure the its defense strategists will be conducting similar exercises too.


----------



## lem34

VCheng said:


> Actually, countries that already have the means to attack Washington, such as Russia and China, do carry out such wargames. If Pakistan one day has the resources to be able to attack mainland USA, then I am sure the its defense strategists will be conducting similar exercises too.



Chinese and Russians do not carry our exercise in genocide. Clearly some American think it is acceptable. Pi$$ing on the dead and burning Korans is not enough for them


----------



## VCheng

Aryan_B said:


> Chinese and Russians do not carry our exercise in genocide. ............



So the millions of deaths within Russia and China in the last century carried out by their own governments (not external wars) do not count as genocide in your book?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## King Solomon

VCheng said:


> So the millions of deaths within Russia and China in the last century carried out by their own governments (not external wars) do not count as genocide in your book?



How about the Red Indian massacre from 1500-1911 and the hundreds of domestic/international conflicts US was involved from its inception?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

S-19 said:


> How about the Red Indian massacre from 1500-1911?



So why be selective then? Open up _all _the massacres of human history. How far back do you want to go?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zabaniyah

Why are VCheng and Aryan B always locking horns with one another?  

Guys, chill. Nothing is going to happen to Mecca and Madina. That general doesn't have all the authority to do it. Although, preaching such extremist ideas is pretty disturbing. Kinda like that Anders fellow who slaughtered his own countrymen due to his hate. 

I really pray to God that a coup never happens in the US due to such idiots being in the "world's most powerful military". Yes, that's the key word. 

@Maj. David: What are exactly the objectives of the course? Is there a syllabus I can access?


----------



## King Solomon

VCheng said:


> So why be selective then? Open up _all _the massacres of human history. How far back do you want to go?



Why are you diverting the topic then? The topic was to compare both. Every state would respond to home grown insurgency/terrorism with force no matter it is Russia/US or even china. You know that and I know that yet the difference is - you are trying to defend the culprit and justify mock-exercise of wiping out Muslims and destroying islamic holy places in this topic.



CENTCOM said:


> This was an elective course that was taught in the Joint Professional Military Education II (JPME II) curriculum at Joint Forces Staff College (JFSC). When concerns were raised by a student and thus brought to the notice of the military leadership, the course in question was suspended. The elective course, entitled called Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism was eight weeks long and met weekly when in session. The course has been taught to some US military students at JFSC since 2004 and is conducted five times a year. The course has been suspended pending the results of a preliminary inquiry of course content and materials to ensure that they meet the mission of the college and are in keeping with Department of Defense policies regarding professional military education. A determination on the future of the course will be made at that point. Till then we should refrain from making any judgments.
> 
> I would like to point out here that the United States is not at war with Islam or Muslims. Our war is against any terrorists who are aiming to kill innocents and disturb world peace. There are many Muslims serving in all facets of society in the United States including the US government and the military. President Obama, while addressing Muslims all over the world from Al-Azhar in Cairo,said, I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles  principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. We still strongly stand by our Presidents statements.
> 
> 
> Maj David Nevers
> DET-United States Central Command
> U.S. Central Command



Thank you for the response. Though it is a matter of great concern that such material is being taught since 2004

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## graphican

Zabaniya said:


> We are screwed...


 Talk about yourself only. Allah will keep Makkah and Madina intact till the day of judgement.. even Dajjal, the unholy Antichrist wouldn't be able to enter these cities. Who are you talking about.. Americans?

"Wala ho khairul Hafiza wa howar Rehman ur Raheem"


----------



## Zabaniyah

Never mind, found it:
U.S. Military Taught Officers: Use 'Hiroshima' Tactics for 'Total War' on Islam | Danger Room | Wired.com
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2012/05/Burki_jihad_brief_JFSC.pdf

It's all on wired. 



S-19 said:


> Thank you for the response. Though it is a matter of great concern that such material is being taught since 2004



Since 2004!? Oh man! Explains the spate of civilian killings by some US soldiers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lem34

I should hope so. what are some of these Americans on to even contemplate genocide

Thats why we need to produce enough nukes in Pakistan to destroy earth if necessary so that we can achieve mutually assured destruction, we certainly need nukes for Tel Aviv which controls America through AIPAC.

maybe this is why they do not want Muslim countries to have nukes so it allows them to contemplate genocide of Muslims


----------



## Wright

Respect4Respect01 said:


> stop bringing india in for no reason,
> 
> heres what would happen, all Muslim countries would get together and tear apart usa and its allies, and usa is already scared of Iran, they cant handle taliban, and im pretty sure they are scared of war now.




Unless the US is in the middle east, you cant do much. You lack ICBM and blue water capability.


----------



## lem34

Zabaniya said:


> Why are VCheng and Aryan B always locking horns with one another?



he defines what is wrong with Pakistan in that a Pakistani who always tries to justify Americas unjust policies



Zabaniya said:


> Guys, chill. Nothing is going to happen to Mecca and Madina. That general doesn't have all the authority to do it. Although, preaching such extremist ideas is pretty disturbing. Kinda like that Anders fellow who slaughtered his own countrymen due to his hate.



Mate you get put into jail in western countries for questioning the details about the holocaust and the Jews. Any slight to Jews is given so much weight. can you imagine if they were talking about wiping Jews out the uproar it would cause.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## laiqs@mi

Aryan_B said:


> he defines what is wrong with Pakistan in that a Pakistani who always tries to justify Americas unjust policies
> .


hats of to you sir....
always worth reading post. masha ALLAH

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lem34

Zabaniya said:


> I really pray to God that a coup never happens in the US due to such idiots being in the "world's most powerful military". Yes, that's the key word.
> 
> @Maj. David: What are exactly the objectives of the course? Is there a syllabus I can access?



America is no longer a democracy and is not representative of its people. Go google American democracy subverted by AIPAC and you will soon realise 4 million or so Zionist Jews control American foreign policy



Zabaniya said:


> Since 2004!? Oh man! Explains the spate of civilian killings by some US soldiers.



Now do you wonder why American soldiers pi$$ on the dead burn Korans and go on killing rampages in Muslim countries???



Wright said:


> Unless the US is in the middle east, you cant do much. You lack ICBM and blue water capability.



w Do not need ICBM to make the earth unliveable 200 nukes could achieve that. If we are faced with genocide you think we will sit at home and play with bangles. Every Muslim country after learning of this must produce nukes for defence



laiqs@mi said:


> hats of to you sir....
> always worth reading post. masha ALLAH


 

thanks for your kind words mate


----------



## Zabaniyah

Aryan_B said:


> Mate you get put into jail in western countries for questioning the details about the holocaust and the Jews. Any slight to Jews is given so much weight. can you imagine if they were talking about wiping Jews out the uproar it would cause.



Well, denial of the Holocaust can send people into jails. But, it is their society and law. Let's respect that. 



Aryan_B said:


> America is no longer a democracy and is not representative of its people. Go google American democracy *subverted by AIPAC and you will soon realise 4 million or so Zionist Jews control American foreign policy*



I've heard of this many times. I've even heard they worship demons (no pun intended). 



Aryan_B said:


> Now do you wonder why American soldiers pi$$ on the dead burn Korans and go on killing rampages in Muslim countries???



Yes, now I know why. I've always been wondering that! 

And not only that, there are many disturbing reports of atrocities committed by US soldiers. 

See here's the thing, Afghanistan is not Texas where people can know whatever exactly happened when a crime occurs, police investigation occurs and justice follows. 

In a remote country like Afghanistan, it's impossible to tell what's going on. So how does that effect the outcome of the war? Do Afghans like them? It's hard to say. 

I mean, they've been teaching such material for years! Is the world's most powerful military that incompetent?


----------



## Zarvan

Arabian Knight said:


> Lt. Col. Matthew A. Dooley's Joint Staff Forces College presentation on "A Counter-Jihad Op Design Model" (.pdf) calls for violent measures in a war against Islam.
> 
> 
> The U.S. military taught its future leaders that a total war against the worlds 1.4 billion Muslims would be necessary to protect America from Islamic terrorists, according to documents obtained by Danger Room. Among the options considered for that conflict: *using the lessons of Hiroshima to wipe out whole cities at once, targeting the civilian population wherever necessary.*
> 
> *The course, first reported by Danger Room last month and held at the Defense Departments Joint Forces Staff College, has since been canceled by the Pentagon brass. Its only now, however, that the details of the class have come to light. *Danger Room received hundreds of pages of course material and reference documents from a source familiar with the contents of the class.
> 
> The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recently ordered the entire U.S. military to scour its training material to make sure it doesnt contain similarly hateful material, a process that is still ongoing. But the officer who delivered the lectures, Army Lt. Col. Matthew A. Dooley, still maintains his position at the Norfolk, Virginia college, pending an investigation. The commanders, lieutenant colonels, captains and colonels who sat in Dooleys classroom, listening to the inflammatory material week after week, have now moved into higher-level assignments throughout the U.S. military.
> 
> 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.
> 
> We have now come to understand that there is no such thing as moderate Islam, Dooley noted in a July 2011 presentation (.pdf), which concluded with a suggested manifesto to Americas enemies. It is therefore time for the United States to make our true intentions clear. This barbaric ideology will no longer be tolerated. Islam must change or we will facilitate its self-destruction.
> 
> Dooley could not be reached for comment. Joint Forces Staff College spokesman Steven Williams declined to discuss Dooleys presentation or his status at the school. But when asked if Dooley was responsible for the course material, he responded, I dont know if I would classify him [Dooley] as responsible. That would be the commandant of the school, Maj. Gen. Joseph Ward.
> 
> That makes the two-star general culpable for rather shocking material. In the same presentation, *Dooley lays out a possible four-phase war plan to carry out a forced transformation of the Islam religion. Phase three includes possible outcomes like Islam reduced to a cult status and Saudi Arabia threatened with starvation. (Its an especially ironic suggestion, in light of todays news that Saudi intelligence broke up the most recent al-Qaida bombing plot.)
> *
> *International laws protecting civilians in wartime are no longer relevant, Dooley continues.* *And that opens the possibility of applying the historical precedents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki to Islams holiest cities, and bringing about Mecca and Medina['s] destruction.*
> 
> 
> Dooleys ideological allies have repeatedly stated that mainstream Muslims are dangerous, because theyre violent by nature. Yet only a few of al-Qaidas most twisted fanatics were ever caught musing about wiping out entire cities.
> 
> Some of these actions offered for consideration here will not be seen as political correct in the eyes of many, Dooley adds. Ultimately, we can do very little in the West to decide this matter, short of waging total war.
> 
> Dooley, who has worked at the Joint Forces Staff College since August 2010, began his eight-week class with a straightforward, two-part history of Islam. It was delivered by David Fatua, a former West Point history professor. Unfortunately, if we left it at that, you wouldnt have the proper balance of points of view, nor would you have an accurate view of how Islam defines itself, Dooley told his students. Over the next few weeks, he invited in a trio of guest lecturers famous for their incendiary views of Islam.
> 
> Shireen Burki declared during the 2008 election that Obama is bin Ladens dream candidate. In her Joint Forces Staff College lecture, she told students that Islam is an Imperialist/Conquering Religion. (.pdf)
> 
> Stephen Coughlin claimed in his 2007 masters thesis that then-president George W. Bushs declaration of friendship with the vast majority of the worlds Muslims had a chilling effect on those tasked to define the enemys doctrine. (.pdf) Coughlin was subsequently let go from his consulting position to the militarys Joint Staff, but he continued to lecture at the Naval War College and at the FBIs Washington Field Office. In his talk to Dooleys class (.pdf), Coughlin suggested that al-Qaida helped drive the overthrow of Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak and Libyan dictator Muammar Gadhafi. It was part of a scheme by Islamists to conquer the world, he added. And Coughlin mocked those who didnt see this plot as clearly as he did, accusing them of complexification.
> 
> Coughlin titled his talk: Imposing Islamic Law  or  These Arent the Droids Your Looking For!
> 
> Former FBI employee John Guandolo told the conspiratorial World Net Daily website last year that Obama was only the latest president to fall under the influence of Islamic extremists. The level of penetration in the last three administrations is deep, Guandolo alleged. In his reference material for the Joint Forces Staff College class, Guandolo not only spoke of todays Muslims as enemies of the West. He even justified the Crusades, writing that they were initiated after hundreds of years of Muslim incursion into Western lands.
> 
> Guandolos paper, titled Usual Responses from the Enemy When Presented With the Truth (.pdf), was one of hundreds of presentations, documents, videos and web links electronically distributed to the Joint Forces Staff College students. Included in that trove: a paper alleging that it is a permanent command in Islam for Muslims to hate and despise Jews and Christians (.pdf). So was a video lecture from Serge Trifkovic, a former professor who appeared as a defense witness in several trials of Bosnian Serb leaders convicted of war crimes, including the genocide of Muslims. A web link, titled Watch Before This Is Pulled, supposedly shows President Obama  the commander-in-chief of the senior officers attending the course  admitting that hes a Muslim.
> 
> Dooley added the caveats that his views are not the Official Policy of the United States Government and are intended to generate dynamic discussion and thought. But he taught his fellow military officers that Obamas alleged admission could well make the commander in chief some sort of traitor. By conservative estimates, 10 percent of the worlds Muslims, a staggering 140 million people  hate everything you stand for and will never coexist with you, unless you submit to Islam. He added, Your oath as a professional soldier forces you to pick a side here. It is unclear if Dooleys total war on Muslims also applied to his Muslim commander in chief.
> 
> *After the Pentagon brass learned of Dooleys presentation, the countrys top military officer, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, issued an order to every military chief and senior commander to get rid of any similar anti-Islam instructional material.* Dempsey issued the order because the White House had already instructed the entire security apparatus of the federal government  military and civilian  to revamp its counterterrorism training after learning of FBI material that demonized Islam.
> 
> *By then, Dooley had already presented his apocalyptic vision for a global religious war.* Flynn has ordered a senior officer, Army Maj. Gen. Frederick Rudesheim, to investigate how precisely Dooley managed to get away with that extended presentation in an official Defense Department-sanctioned course. The results of that review are due May 24.
> 
> Ironically, Dooley and his guest lecturers paint a dire picture of the forward march of Islamic extremism right as its foremost practitioner feared its implosion. Documents recently declassified by the U.S. government revealed Osama bin Laden fretting about al-Qaidas brutal methods and damaged brand alienating the vast majority of Muslims from choosing to wage holy war. Little could he have known that U.S. military officers were thinking of ways to ignite one.
> 
> U.S. Military Taught Officers: Use 'Hiroshima' Tactics for 'Total War' on Islam | Danger Room | Wired.com


This should open eyes of all those on this forum who think Israel will never have war with Saudi Arabia Sir their main target is to destroy Makkah and Madinah and that is why they are against our Nuclear Program and that is why we need Nuclear Program and increase it Ameirca and Israel will act together and we will have to fight them together as one UMMAH

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## King Solomon

Zarvan said:


> This should open eyes of all those on this forum who think Israel will never have war with Saudi Arabia Sir their main target is to destroy Makkah and Madinah and that is why they are against our Nuclear Program and that is why we need Nuclear Program and increase it Ameirca and Israel will act together and we will have to fight them together as one UMMAH



Wake up, that's nothing new. If Israel wished, it could wipe out Mecca/Medina long ago with its multi-megaton nukes. It would only face "international condemnation" for that and nothing more.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

S-19 said:


> Wake up, that's nothing new. If Israel wished, it could wipe out Mecca/Medina long ago with its multi-megaton nukes. It would only face "international condemnation" for that and nothing more.


O really do you think it will be that easy WOW than you know nothing of Islam and Muslims Sir you are complete ignorant when coming to this this will result in end of Israel and WORLD WAR 3 and the most brutal one and the most deadly one International Condemnation only 

WASHINGTON: A controversial US military course that taught officers to prepare for a "total war" against Islam using "Hiroshima-style" tactics has been suspended by the Pentagon following an uproar.

The Pentagon suspended the course in late April when a student objected to the materials, which has been termed as against American values by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen Martin Dempsey.

"It was just totally objectionable, against our values, and it wasn't academically sound. This wasn't about, you know, we're pushing back on liberal thought. This was just objectionable, academically irresponsible," Gen Dempsey said.

"There is an investigation ongoing. The individual instructor is no longer in a teaching status. He is not in a teaching status. And are you asking me am I surprised? Yeah. I'm surprised. And I was actually quite thankful that the young man who did find the course material offensive spoke up," he said in response to a question.

However, the instructor responsible for the course, Army Lt Col Matthew A Dooley, is still employed at the Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, Virginia.

According to media reports, Dooley, for about an year, taught an optional course at the college for lieutenant colonels, colonels, commanders and Navy captains which proposed taking a war on Islam.

"We are looking at how that course was approved, what motivated the individual to adopt that -- it was an elective, but what motivated that elective for being part of the curriculum. We are looking across the institutions that provide our professional military education now to make sure there's nothing like that out there," Gen Dempsey added.


----------



## Zabaniyah

S-19 said:


> Wake up, that's nothing new. If Israel wished, it could wipe out Mecca/Medina long ago with its multi-megaton nukes. It would only face "international condemnation" for that and nothing more.



I'm afraid it's not that simple. 

I don't think they want to "destroy" Mecca and Medina. 

There were rumors (not facts) that some Zionists want to take back that site which they lost many ages ago. Ever heard of "greater Israel"? They say the Kaaba contains powerful energies. I don't know. 

I'd say it is pretty pointless to brag about the past.


----------



## Zarvan

Zabaniya said:


> I'm afraid it's not that simple.
> 
> I don't think they want to "destroy" Mecca and Medina.
> 
> There were rumors (not facts) that some Zionists want to take back that site which they lost many ages ago. Ever heard of "greater Israel"? They say the Kaaba contains powerful energies. I don't know.
> 
> I'd say it is pretty pointless to brag about the past.


Sir it is that simple the are taught courses of this sort still Muslims want to deny the truth and think trouble will not hit them


----------



## Zabaniyah

Zarvan said:


> Sir it is that simple the are taught courses of this sort still Muslims want to deny the truth and think trouble will not hit them



To say all Americans are trigger-happy rednecks is like saying all Muslims are terrorists. 

Get it?


----------



## Mo12

I think USA military are talking about the muslim terrorists only


----------



## Zabaniyah

S-19 said:


> Israel could have achieved Greater Israel quite easily in 1967. But they chose to have mercy on their neighbor Arabs.



Read my post again. 



Mo12 said:


> I think USA military are talking about the muslim terrorists only



Read the damn article before commenting!


----------



## Wright

> w Do not need ICBM to make the earth unliveable 200 nukes could achieve that. If we are faced with genocide you think we will sit at home and play with bangles. Every Muslim country after learning of this must produce nukes for defence



I doubt it. Policy makers of nations have vested interests in life. unlike the poor improvised terrorists who truly have nothing to lose.

I highly doubt Pakistan would nuke anyone over two arab cities being destroyed. That would mean the end of Pakistan. Something which the middle class and upper class would not want to see. 

Also you overestimate the power of nukes. Life is incredibly resilient. Earth has been through far worse in its history.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## babajees

Shame on America. So the crusaders are killing muslims all over the world and we are sitting ducks. #GetLostNato

I am surprised no US CENTCOM reply yet... they are pretty active in their propaganda. Wonder what they say about this one..


----------



## Zabaniyah

babajees said:


> I am surprised no US CENTCOM reply yet... they are pretty active in their propaganda. Wonder what they say about this one..



They did:


CENTCOM said:


> This was an elective course that was taught in the Joint Professional Military Education II (JPME II) curriculum at Joint Forces Staff College (JFSC). When concerns were raised by a student and thus brought to the notice of the military leadership, the course in question was suspended. The elective course, entitled called &#8220;Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism&#8221; was eight weeks long and met weekly when in session. The course has been taught to some US military students at JFSC since 2004 and is conducted five times a year. The course has been suspended pending the results of a preliminary inquiry of course content and materials to ensure that they meet the mission of the college and are in keeping with Department of Defense policies regarding professional military education. A determination on the future of the course will be made at that point. Till then we should refrain from making any judgments.
> 
> I would like to point out here that the United States is not at war with Islam or Muslims. Our war is against any terrorists who are aiming to kill innocents and disturb world peace. There are many Muslims serving in all facets of society in the United States including the US government and the military. President Obama, while addressing Muslims all over the world from Al-Azhar in Cairo,said, &#8220;I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles &#8211; principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.&#8221; We still strongly stand by our President&#8217;s statements.
> 
> 
> Maj David Nevers
> DET-United States Central Command
> U.S. Central Command


http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...cers-hiroshima-tactics-total-war-islam-5.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hasbara Buster

Coltsfan said:


> You have to be naive to believe that document.
> 
> Having said that, if US ever decides that it is in its absolute national interest to destroy the holiest of cities, there is nothing you or Allah SBWT will be able to do to save them



Why do you support the destruction of our holy cities waving an American flag? Do you have any morals at all? Am I the only one who believes that this poster deserves an immediate ban? Is it allowed to openly call for genocide nowadays in the name of freedom of speech? What happened to the moderaters?



Juice said:


> Shall I hunt for videos of Arab leader foaming about the destruction of isreal, of driving Jews into the sea, slaughtering them?


What would you do if America was in the same situation as Palestinians? I'm pretty sure you would say even worse things.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DRaisinHerald

Not a surprise; I'm sure most people have realised what this war is about.

Peace? Anti-terrorism war? Jokers


----------



## DRaisinHerald

Rod of God said:


> No problem, dude !!



Techdiver strikes again; I see you created a new account after being perm banned.


*On topic*: These Americans certainly do have genocidal thought about us; we'll just have to wait and see when the full out war starts/they try to start one. Look at what's being taught at US Military colleges 

BBC News - Pentagon condemns 'war on Islam' US training class

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Oldman1

DRaisinHerald said:


> Techdiver strikes again; I see you created a new account after being perm banned.
> 
> 
> *On topic*: These Americans certainly do have genocidal thought about us; we'll just have to wait and see when the full out war starts/they try to start one. Look at what's being taught at US Military colleges
> 
> BBC News - Pentagon condemns 'war on Islam' US training class



We Americans are from other countries. Hence where we got our genocidal genes from? How was Islam spread if no offense taken before America was born?


----------



## Rod of God

Oldman1 said:


> We Americans are from other countries. Hence where we got our genocidal genes from? ...



Taken from one of my OTHER posts...




..Then there is THIS theory...


Ralph Peters
New York Post
Last Updated:Tue., May. 8, 2012, 08:20pm

THE 'EURABIA' MYTH; MUSLIMS TAKE OVER EUROPE? SORRY, THERE'S NO CHANCE



A RASH of pop prophets tell us that Muslims in Europe are reproducing so fast and European societies are so weak and listless that, before you know it, the continent will become "Eurabia," with all those topless gals on the Riviera wearing veils.

Well, maybe not.

The notion that continental Europeans, who are world-champion haters, will let the impoverished Muslim immigrants they confine to ghettos take over their societies and extend the caliphate from the Amalfi Coast to Amsterdam has it exactly wrong.

The endangered species isn't the "peace loving" European lolling in his or her welfare state, but the continent's Muslims immigrants - and their multi-generation descendents - who were foolish enough to imagine that Europeans would share their toys.

In fact, Muslims are hardly welcome to pick up the trash on Europe's playgrounds.

Don't let Europe's current round of playing pacifist dress-up fool you: This is the continent that perfected genocide and ethnic cleansing, the happy-go-lucky slice of humanity that brought us such recent hits as the Holocaust and Srebrenica.

THE historical patterns are clear: When Europeans feel sufficiently threatened - even when the threat's concocted nonsense - they don't just react, they over-react with stunning ferocity. One of their more-humane (and frequently employed) techniques has been ethnic cleansing.

And Europeans won't even need to re-write "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" with an Islamist theme - real Muslims zealots provide Europe's bigots with all the propaganda they need. Al Qaeda and its wannabe fans are the worst thing that could have happened to Europe's Muslims. Europe hasn't broken free of its historical addictions - we're going to see Europe's history reprised on meth.

The year 1492 wasn't just big for Columbus. It's also when Spain expelled its culturally magnificent Jewish community en masse - to be followed shortly by the Moors, Muslims who had been on the Iberian Peninsula for more than 800 years.

Jews got the boot elsewhere in Europe, too - if they weren't just killed on the spot. When Shakespeare wrote "The Merchant of Venice," it's a safe bet he'd never met a Jew. The Chosen People were long-gone from Jolly Olde England.

From the French expulsion of the Huguenots right down to the last century's massive ethnic cleansings, Europeans have never been shy about showing "foreigners and subversives" the door.

And Europe's Muslims don't even have roots, by historical standards. For the Europeans, they're just the detritus of colonial history. When Europeans feel sufficiently provoked and threatened - a few serious terrorist attacks could do it - Europe's Muslims will be lucky just to be deported

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zabaniyah

Great, now this is becoming 'unholier than thou'


----------



## King Solomon

DRaisinHerald said:


> Techdiver strikes again; I see you created a new account after being perm banned.
> 
> 
> *On topic*: These Americans certainly do have genocidal thought about us; we'll just have to wait and see when the full out war starts/they try to start one. Look at what's being taught at US Military colleges
> 
> BBC News - Pentagon condemns 'war on Islam' US training class



How quickly you label all Americans to be of the same class when something negative comes out of US.


----------



## Zabaniyah

Hey, hey!

Not all Americans are trigger-happy rednecks! (although I find them amusing!) 

Similarly, not all Muslims are extremists! 

Now stop trolling!


----------



## King Solomon

Zarvan said:


> O really do you think it will be that easy WOW than you know nothing of Islam and Muslims Sir you are complete ignorant when coming to this this will result in end of Israel and WORLD WAR 3 and the most brutal one and the most deadly one International Condemnation only



The fact still stands no matter how much you rant, although it may be painful for you to hear: Israel can flatten the whole middle east including Mecca/Medina in no more than a couple of minutes. Repercussions won't be much other than "international condemnation". World war 3 would require the participation of major powers which won't happen in such a scenario. Civil war would start to overthrow pro-western muslim majority governments including in saudi arabia. Some insurgency would start in the west, but would be bogged down.

In the end, Mecca/Medina would have to be rebuilt in such a scenario. Stop acting tough.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## King Solomon

Oscar said:


> BTW.. anybody remember the final scenes in Angelina Jolie's _SALT_?
> Where Mecca is being targeted??
> There is an underlying tone within this war of the crusades, as much as it is denied.. those neo-cons that started it.. thought of nothing else.



In the last scene, terrorists plan to launch nukes to Mecca and Tehran


----------



## Big Boss

*US suspends 'war on Islam' military course*


WASHINGTON: A course for US military officers has been teaching that America's enemy is Islam in general, not just terrorists, and suggesting that the country might ultimately have to obliterate the Islamic holy cities of Mecca and Medina without regard for civilian deaths, following World War II precedents of the nuclear attack on Hiroshima or the allied firebombing of Dresden.

The Pentagon suspended the course in late April when a student objected to the material . The FBI also changed some agent training last year after discovering that it, too, was critical of Islam. The teaching in military course was counter to repeated assertions by US officials over the past decade that America is at war against Islamic extremists , not the religion itself.

"They hate everything you stand for and will never coexist with you, unless you submit ," the instructor, army Lt Col Matthew Dooley, said in a presentation last July for the course at Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, Virginia.

The college, for professional military members, teaches midlevel officers and government civilians on subjects related to planning and executing war. Dooley also presumed, for the purposes of his theoretical war plan, that the Geneva Conventions that set standards of armed conflict are "no longer relevant" . He adds: "This would leave open the option once again of taking war to a civilian population wherever necessary (precedents of Dresden, Tokyo , Hiroshima, Nagasaki being applicable... )".

*His war plan suggests possible outcomes such as "Saudi Arabia threatened with starvation ... Islam reduced to cult status" and the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia "destroyed" .*

A copy of the presentation was obtained and posted online by Wired.com's Danger Room blog. The college did not respond to The Associated Press' requests for copies of the documents, but a Pentagon spokesman authenticated the documents. Dooley still works for the college, but is no longer teaching, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen Martin Dempsey said. Dooley refused to comment, saying "Can't talk to you, sir," and hanging up when reached by telephone at his office on Thursday. A summary of Dooley's military service record provided by Army Human Resources Command at Fort Knox, Kentucky, shows that he was commissioned as a second lieutenant upon graduation from the US Military Academy in May 1994. He has served overseas tours in Germany, Bosnia, Kuwait and Iraq. He has numerous awards including a Bronze Star Medal, the fourth-highest military award for bravery, or meritorious service.

In what he termed a model for a campaign to force a transformation of Islam, Dooley called for "a direct ideological and philosophical confrontation with Islam" , with the presumption that Islam is an ideology. He asserted that Islam has already declared war on the West, and the US specifically. "It is therefore illogical" to continue with the current US strategy, which Dooley said presumes there is a way of finding common ground with Islamic religious leaders without "waging near 'total war,'" he wrote. 

US suspends 'war on Islam' military course - The Times of India

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Safriz

not surprised at all..
they have been waging war against Islam for decades now......it was actually good to admit it in public and to their soldiers....

What they dont realize is that Islam has a higher power on its side...a power they or anybody cannot fight.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RayKalm

Oscar said:


> BTW.. anybody remember the final scenes in Angelina Jolie's _SALT_?
> Where Mecca is being targeted??
> There is an underlying tone within this war of the crusades, as much as it is denied.. those neo-cons that started it.. thought of nothing else.



Yes, I was going to bring that out. America/Israel/Zionism/whatever usually love to reveal their strategy in Hollywood movies prior to their attacks. Remember 9/11? There's a dozen movies and shows exposing it before it happened.



S-19 said:


> This is quite a nasty thing to be taught in a military school.
> 
> But it is true that if US wishes, they could nuke Mecca and get away with it. Because Muslims don't have any weapon or nuke with delivery system by which they can target US. Maybe they will face some homegrown insurgency but that is it.
> 
> Check my other topic which reports about de-classified documents where US was preparing for a full-scale invasion of Saudi arabia in 1970s. Without the petrodollar agreement, we could be seeing Mecca/Medina nuked or destroyed in that invasion.
> 
> Maybe the petrodollar was for good after all.



Will Russia/China allow that to happen? No.


----------



## King Solomon

RayKalm said:


> Will Russia/China allow that to happen? No.



I don't see why not... russia/china does not have any stakes in Mecca/Medina at all... And muslim majority countries don't have any credible deterrent for that. Yes, pakistan has nukes but it cannot hope to use them and get nuked in return by US sitting at Persian gulf..

Yes, everybody would condemn and probably a resolution against Israel would be bought at UN. But like all previous resolutions this one would be vetoed by US as well I think.



> Yes, I was going to bring that out. America/Israel/Zionism/whatever usually love to reveal their strategy in Hollywood movies prior to their attacks. Remember 9/11? There's a dozen movies and shows exposing it before it happened.



Interesting. Should we expect the world to end this year?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AUz

And look at the comments of "secular" bhartis slandering Islam , posting anti-Islamic websites and saying "For truth , go here" , and clapping for the Col. Dooley because he showed "gutts" to speak the truth. I wonder if THIS is the level of "respect and love" bhartis have for Islam/Muslims....how do they treat their 'Muslim Indian citizens' ? No wonder Muslims are backward in India. Insecure , defeated , insulted , and inferiority-complex stricken Hindus have found a good scapegoat (Indian Muslims) and a good source to take out their frustration (Internet). What else a race like this can demand?  In the real world , however , these hindus will be cleaning the toilets of the people they hate so much (Muslim Arabs) 


*The most recommended "comment" on TOI website ....*

*"Americans planning to destroy Macca ! I just love it, do it. Whole world is with u americans. Muslims killed Iranians converted them to Islam Forcelfully, Afghanistanis were forcefully converted. Now the time has come up to be united against this most evil thing on face of the world Ameen.."* -- *rakuntal (India)* 

Yeah boi! that is what I'm talking about ...

Now let 2nd class citizens of India, Indian Muslims , come and tell us how great India is and how prosperous they are and yada yada yada ....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 45'22'

AUz said:


> And look at the comments of "secular" bhartis slandering Islam , posting anti-Islamic websites and saying "For truth , go here" , and clapping for the Col. Dooley because he showed "gutts" to speak the truth. I wonder if THIS is the level of "respect and love" bhartis have for Islam/Muslims....how do they treat their 'Muslim Indian citizens' ? No wonder Muslims are backward in India. Insecure , defeated , insulted , and inferiority-complex stricken Hindus have found a good scapegoat (Indian Muslims) and a good source to take out their frustration (Internet). What else a race like this can demand?  In the real world , however , these hindus will be cleaning the toilets of the people they hate so much (Muslim Arabs)


Asking out of curiosity,bhai apne Gadar movie kitni bar dekha hai

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## StormShadow

If muslims threathen to drive the jews away from their holy place, then the jews and the Americans will definitely have plans for a tit-for-tat response.

Instead of nuking each and every muslim country, the US just nukes where it hurts the most...their holy places. If an attack is going to happen simultaneously on mecca/madina and another muslim country, the muslims of that country itself will prefer to defend mecca than their own country.


----------



## Khan_patriot

Coltsfan said:


> You have to be naive to believe that document.
> 
> Having said that, if US ever decides that it is in its absolute national interest to destroy the holiest of cities, there is nothing you or Allah SBWT will be able to do to save them
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't an infidel who tried to seize control, so that doesn't count.



dick just **** off.....when and IF this really happens a couple of nukes gonna fall over israel ( the affected Palestinians will willingly accept to be martyred, this is how ''radical'' Islam is ) a couple over Mumbai, delhi etc cuz IF this happens India will have a major role and then its all Qital fi Sabililah from there....this may sound stupid to you but for true Muslims thats just the reality.....Allah ho Akbar

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Awesome

America's real defeat at the hand of Al Qaeda has been how it has become a country that promotes such hate.


----------



## Rusty

Well this just killed 2 myths with one stone. 
1. that there is no war against Islam 
and 2. That Indians are tolerant of Muslims. 

I wonder where the Indians and Americans are?


----------



## LaBong

> And look at the comments of "secular" bhartis slandering Islam , posting anti-Islamic websites and saying "For truth , go here" , and clapping for the Col. Dooley because he showed "gutts" to speak the truth. I wonder if THIS is the level of "respect and love" bhartis have for Islam/Muslims....how do they treat their 'Muslim Indian citizens' ? No wonder Muslims are backward in India. Insecure , defeated , insulted , and inferiority-complex stricken Hindus have found a good scapegoat (Indian Muslims) and a good source to take out their frustration (Internet). What else a race like this can demand? In the real world , however , these hindus will be cleaning the toilets of the people they hate so much (Muslim Arabs)



This thread has nothing to do with Indian Muslims, but since you brought them, let me assure you, an average Indian Muslim is more literate and earns more than an average Pakistani Muslim, and has far less probability of getting blown up in pieces while he is praying in a masjid. 

As far as Hindus living in KSA is concerned, rich coming from a Pakistani living in USA and considering how your Arabian brothers treat you.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## livingdead

Hope the person who made this course material is made accountable, also those who permitted this to go on for years without checking.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Peregrine

Now some people may get the answers that why Pakistan is stockpiling nukes in huge numbers. We must always stand prepared for the worst, if we are too fall, then make sure that we take the enemy along.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Safriz

surat al feel
comes to mind..
when Abrahaa attacked kaaba with that era's most destructive force....the weakest of the creatures were sent to fight them and obliterated them...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Peregrine

Can we get Saudi's response on this, how their ''Guardian Angel'' had been practicing to back stab them?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Arabian Knight




----------



## Zabaniyah

StormShadow said:


> If muslims threathen to drive the jews away from their holy place, then the jews and the Americans will definitely have plans for a tit-for-tat response.
> 
> Instead of nuking each and every muslim country, the US just nukes where it hurts the most...their holy places. If an attack is going to happen simultaneously on mecca/madina and another muslim country, the muslims of that country itself will prefer to defend mecca than their own country.



Read the whole article. It is not about Israel.


----------



## Vinod2070

AUz said:


> And look at the comments of "secular" bhartis slandering Islam , posting anti-Islamic websites and saying "For truth , go here" , and clapping for the Col. Dooley because he showed "gutts" to speak the truth. I wonder if THIS is the level of "respect and love" bhartis have for Islam/Muslims....how do they treat their 'Muslim Indian citizens' ? No wonder Muslims are backward in India. Insecure , defeated , insulted , and inferiority-complex stricken Hindus have found a good scapegoat (Indian Muslims) and a good source to take out their frustration (Internet). What else a race like this can demand?  In the real world , however , these hindus will be cleaning the toilets of the people they hate so much (Muslim Arabs)
> 
> 
> *The most recommended "comment" on TOI website ....*
> 
> *"Americans planning to destroy Macca ! I just love it, do it. Whole world is with u americans. Muslims killed Iranians converted them to Islam Forcelfully, Afghanistanis were forcefully converted. Now the time has come up to be united against this most evil thing on face of the world Ameen.."* -- *rakuntal (India)*
> 
> Yeah boi! that is what I'm talking about ...
> 
> Now let 2nd class citizens of India, Indian Muslims , come and tell us how great India is and how prosperous they are and yada yada yada ....



All such people care for is the comment by some Indians on a website!

Why did the Americans and Westerners (who have allowed millions of you to live among themselves as equal citizens, something that no Arab Muslim country allows) turned so much against Islam?

Any thoughts?


----------



## DRaisinHerald

S-19 said:


> How quickly you label all Americans to be of the same class when something negative comes out of US.



How quick for you to judge someone without understanding their post.

Now be a good boy and point out where I said "_all American's have genocidal thoughts about us_".

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Vinod2070

Aryan_B said:


> I have faith in Allah. I am not a pagan. So I will continue in the belief that he is the almighty you can continue believing America is a god with your other gods if you are hindu


 
You are what you are. A hate filled zombie.

I can speak a lot about what you *really *worship. I will spare that for now.



Aryan_B said:


> I find it difficult to find anyone Muslim or not who could possibly accept this type of theory and war games. can you imagine if Pakistanis were planning or theorizing war games to eliminate Jews etc.


 
Read what the Arabs were openly saying during the Arab Israel wars, pushing the Jews to the sea, paving roads with their skulls etc.

You personally are not above making those pathetic comments as a identity crisis struck hater...



Erdogan said:


> Why do you support the destruction of our holy cities waving an American flag? Do you have any morals at all? Am I the only one who believes that this poster deserves an immediate ban? Is it allowed to openly call for genocide nowadays in the name of freedom of speech? What happened to the moderaters?
> 
> 
> What would you do if America was in the same situation as Palestinians? I'm pretty sure you would say even worse things.


 
The Turks destroyed thousands of worship places all over in the name of Islam.

Do you know who was "but shikan par excellence"?

Any comments on that?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Awesome

VCheng said:


> One page taken out of context, and with "spys" misspelled. Yup, must be enough to go all berserk!
> 
> War games and theorizing are like that by definition. Anybody with even a small amount of faith would believe in the promise the Allah Himself protects Mecca and Medina. So what is the problem here?



You just thereby gave the best defence speech for all jihadi Madrassas. Let them play scenario scenario. What's the harm?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nishan_101

Now there eyes are on towards IRAN and China nothing else!!!


----------



## tarrar

First of all lets piss on the source.

It should be clear that Jew lobby control's US & they are waging all this war only Islamic countries for Greater Israel. All of this was already told by our Prophet Mushammed (P.B.U.H) & it is happening but unfortunately as the time passed by Muslims have completely rejected this & are lost in there own world of fiction & lies. Young generation Muslims are totally off track &have no idea what Islam is all about.

I have met so many young Muslims & Muslims of my age who have absolutely no idea about whats going on in today world & how our Prophet knew all this would actually happen all this.

In short a war has been waged on Muslims & Muslims are all scattered like our Prophet said. We all Muslims who know whats happening & whats the going to happen are waiting for our liberator, our true leader & our true Khalifa who will start Khilafat once again Hazrat Imam Mahdi. 

I would like to share this video wit you all the last moments of SalahUddin.


----------



## Developereo

Oscar said:


> There is an underlying tone within this war of the crusades, as much as it is denied.. those neo-cons that started it.. thought of nothing else.



It's not just the neocons. As you can see in this thread, it is also the usual Pakistani sycophants as well as the various apologists who are defending this behavior.

As Aryan and others have posted, if Pakistanis or other Muslim governments were officially talking about eliminating other religions, these same apologists would be howling. Yet, here, we seem them excusing American actions as 'understandable'.

I had posted a program clip about the chief chaplain of US forces in Afghanistan and how his troops drove around Afghanistan with a banner 'Jesus killed Mohammad'.

There is a definitively racist and Islamophobic element which is influential in US politics.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Icarus

I can't see how they can be teaching this as representatives from a number of Muslim countries (KSA, Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan, UAE, Azerbaijan, etc) are sent each year to attend the Staff Course at Norfolk. Wouldn't they have objected if this had been taught to them? I think it is a false report but a former alumni can be a more concrete authority on this issue. Chogy is a retired officer, maybe he knows. CENTCOM is a serving officer, he can definitely shed some light on this.


----------



## Jango

Icarus said:


> I can't see how they can be teaching this as representatives from a number of Muslim countries (KSA, Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan, UAE, Azerbaijan, etc) are sent each year to attend the Staff Course at Norfolk. Wouldn't they have objected if this had been taught to them? I think it is a false report but a former alumni can be a more concrete authority on this issue. Chogy is a retired officer, maybe he knows. CENTCOM is a serving officer, he can definitely shed some light on this.



CENTCOM yesterday confirmed that this course did indeed take place, and that it had been taken off for review and investigation after a student ojected.

So, this did happen.

This was an elective course I think, and maybe the muslims just did not elect for it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Last Hope

This cannot happen.

The US government and military may think such way but they are not retards to open this to anyone. This won't only give them more hatred from Muslims but even their own people, and their allies would be disgusted.

This is possible though, yet kept highly classified.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zabaniyah

Well, we have Muslim extremists. 

And there appears to be extremists in the world's most powerful military. 

I don't see it ending well. 

No pun intended


----------



## Jango

*Go to post 72, of CENTCOM. He admitted and gave a little clarification.*

http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...cers-hiroshima-tactics-total-war-islam-5.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Developereo

DRaisinHerald said:


> How quick for you to judge someone without understanding their post.
> 
> Now be a good boy and point out where I said "_all American's have genocidal thoughts about us_".



The matter under discussion is indefensible so the apologists will look for any opening, real or imagined, to divert from the topic.

In the first two pages, I did not see the usual apologists condemn this activity. Instead we are treated to the usual dose of "it's the (moderate) Muslims' own fault; the Muslims also do it; the US/Israel can destroy all Muslims, so what are you going to do about it, etc. etc."

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DRaisinHerald

Developereo said:


> The matter under discussion is indefensible so the apologists will look for any opening, real or imagined, to divert from the topic



I don't know, maybe they don't realise how grave of a thing this is. The media is indoctrinating people to subconsciously hate Muslims; while the top brass of the country that' supposedly fighting extremist terrorists to protect the world is actually teaching it's future jawans that we can pull the plug on the Muslims by nuking their holiest site.
It can hardly be dismissed as accidental or of no concern.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Developereo

CENTCOM said:


> When concerns were raised by a student



But not until then, eh?

Do courses at the JFSC get approved without a review of the course material beforehand?

It's all about "let's see what we can get away with until we get caught", is it?

After repeated incidents of racism and anti-Islam bigotry by active duty personnel, after numerous statements by Clinton and Obama that the US is not at war with Islam, the US military is still in reactive mode?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lem34

Developereo said:


> The matter under discussion is indefensible so the apologists will look for any opening, real or imagined, to divert from the topic.



That is it period I think even most Americans would be embarrassed to defend such outrageous behaviour


----------



## Developereo

DRaisinHerald said:


> I don't know, maybe they don't realise how grave of a thing this is. The media is indoctrinating people to subconsciously hate Muslims; while the top brass of the country that' supposedly fighting extremist terrorists to protect the world is actually teaching it's future jawans that we can pull the plug on the Muslims by nuking their holiest site.
> It can hardly be dismissed as accidental or of no concern.



Absolutely. Look at the kind of 'hate ****' that gets them off.



Rod of God said:


> When Europeans feel sufficiently threatened - even when the threat's concocted nonsense - they don't just react, they over-react with stunning ferocity. One of their more-humane (and frequently employed) techniques has been ethnic cleansing.
> [...]
> Europe's Muslims will be lucky just to be deported


----------



## VCheng

Asim Aquil said:


> America's real defeat at the hand of Al Qaeda has been how it has become a country that promotes such hate.



It takes much more that one elective course at one academy to change a whole country's outlook. Claims of US defeat are premature.



Icarus said:


> I can't see how they can be teaching this as representatives from a number of Muslim countries (KSA, Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan, UAE, Azerbaijan, etc) are sent each year to attend the Staff Course at Norfolk. Wouldn't they have objected if this had been taught to them? I think it is a false report but a former alumni can be a more concrete authority on this issue. Chogy is a retired officer, maybe he knows. CENTCOM is a serving officer, he can definitely shed some light on this.



It was one elective course and in keeping with the need to present all types of scenarios.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vsdoc

I personally actually strongly believe that the West in increasingly at war with radical Islam.

Its more institutionalized in the upper super secret echelons of power in the US. 

In Europe its more raw and down and dirty at the people to people level.

Its not a new war either.

Its Utopian to expect that there will be radicals on only one side.

Every force wil be met with a counter-force.

Its the law of nature.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## lem34

VCheng said:


> It takes much more that one elective course at one academy to change a whole country's outlook. Claims of US defeat are premature.
> 
> 
> 
> It was one elective course and in keeping with the need to present all types of scenarios.



Oh give me a break mate. Look at the outrage in America at the slightest comment anti Jewish is sufficient to get you censored. Imagine if they had run a course about eliminating Israel or Jews.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## r3alist

the important point to me is that this course managed to get organised and presumably approved - it wasn't just an idea but it actually happened and went through enough people without objection - does that mean there is a tacit approval of those policies amongst the majority of people who knew of this?

secondly, if this is whats possible to taught then what else are they taught? who can be so stupid to think that if a course like this comes into fruition there arent other crazy and sick views held?

are we surprised that so many civillians are brutalized, killed and humiliated if this is how the us indoctrinates its soldiers?


i dont think its meaningful to just apologise and cut the course out, this is a damaging story (depending on your viewpoint) and ofcourse they will cut this out, but how far us does this go?



vsdoc said:


> I personally actually strongly believe that the West in increasingly at war with radical Islam.
> 
> Its more institutionalized in the upper super secret echelons of power in the US.
> 
> In Europe its more raw and down and dirty at the people to people level.
> 
> Its not a new war either.
> 
> Its Utopian to expect that there will be radicals on only one side.
> 
> Every force wil be met with a counter-force.
> 
> Its the law of nature.





unfortunately for simple ordinary muslims the west is the biggest supporter of radical islam, its a strange thing to say at first but undeniable true.

just look at their relationships over the past 30 years - form the mujhadeen, to the taliban (in the 90's), to libyan al qaeda rebels to the egyption brother hood.

there are always stupid fanatical idiots aplenty who can be used, the west is always the first to use them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vsdoc

r3alist said:


> unfortunately for simple ordinary muslims the west is the biggest supporter of radical islam, its a strange thing to say at first but undeniable true.
> 
> just look at their relationships over the past 30 years - form the mujhadeen, to the taliban (in the 90's), to libyan al qaeda rebels to the egyption brother hood.
> 
> there are always stupid fanatical idiots aplenty who can be used, the west is always the first to use them.



I agree.

There is no honor amongst thieves.


----------



## VCheng

Developereo said:


> The matter under discussion is indefensible ...............



One elective course that presents an alternative point of view is "indefensible"? Officers should develop skills necessary to critically evaluate what needs to be done. If one course says "Kill 'em all and nuke Mecca!" they go away knowing that "No, we can't kill them all, and there is no point in nuking Mecca". The course served its purpose well.


----------



## VCheng

Aryan_B said:


> ............... Imagine if they had run a course about eliminating Israel or Jews.



Actually, those scenarios are developed and discussed too, for example, what happens if Tel Aviv is nuked?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Icarus

VCheng said:


> It was one elective course and in keeping with the need to present all types of scenarios.




I don't know who green lighted this course but whoever did, I hope they also added in the preface that such an event would signal the next crusades. Right now, less than 500,000 rag tag militants are keeping about 60 of the world's most advanced armed forces busy and giving them a real run for their money, the ISAF enjoys massive amount of local co-operation. If the holy sites are attacked however, you will be fighting 2 Billion people! 
We'll all be pushed back into the middle ages.


----------



## vsdoc

Icarus said:


> If the holy sites are attacked however, you will be fighting 3 Billion people!



Who is "you"? And by extension, who are these 3 billion people?


----------



## Icarus

VCheng said:


> Actually, those scenarios are developed and discussed too, for example, what happens if Tel Aviv is nuked?



Yeah, we attended a Think Tank, and were given topics like:

1) An Al-Qaeda based party wins elections in Pakistan and now has control of the PA and Nukes.
2) The First Lady of America is kidnapped and the miscreants are blackmailing the president, would we sack him to avoid him making bad decisions under blackmail?

Among others.



vsdoc said:


> Who is "you"? And by extension, who are these 3 billion people?



You: America

2 Billion (Accidentally wrote 3): Muslims


----------



## Developereo

VCheng said:


> One elective course that presents an alternative point of view is "indefensible"? Officers should develop skills necessary to critically evaluate what needs to be done. If one course says "Kill 'em all and nuke Mecca!" they go away knowing that "No, we can't kill them all, and there is no point in nuking Mecca". The course served its purpose well.



Do you suppose there is a course at JFSC that "presents an alternative point of view" to nuke major population centers in Africa to discourage Somali pirates?

The subtext here is that the enemy is all Muslims and Islam itself, hence targeting Muslim holy places will form a credible deterrent. Courses like this reinforce that view of the conflict. This is not idle speculation; the repeated incidents of anti-Muslim bigotry by active duty personnel do not happen in a vacuum.


----------



## Stealth

loll eek asi koom hey jo Americnoo kay khoob chaat-thi hey wohi usko idar b defend karayge jo kudh accept kar rahay hain.. hoon thay sama he gaye hogay LOLzzzzzzzzzzzz

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

Icarus said:


> I don't know who green lighted this course but whoever did, I hope they also added in the preface that such an event would signal the next crusades. Right now, less than 500,000 rag tag militants are keeping about 60 of the world's most advanced armed forces busy and giving them a real run for their money, the ISAF enjoys massive amount of local co-operation. If the holy sites are attacked however, you will be fighting 3 Billion people!
> We'll all be pushed back into the middle ages.



Exactly correct. What do you think happens when you say to officers of any country "Nuke Mecca, and then kill the outraged 3 billion Muslims!"? The answer will always be "Are you nuts!?". Next scenario!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## vsdoc

Icarus said:


> You: America



If it comes down to a Crusades type situation, 300 million Americans will not be alone. 

You would probably be polarizing the world into the 2.2+ billion Christians.

This would include all of Europe. All of Russia.

IF you gave a religious flavor to this.



> 3 Billion: Muslims



You highly overestimate. 1.6 billion is more like it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

Developereo said:


> Do you suppose there is a course at JFSC that "presents an alternative point of view" to nuke major population centers in Africa to discourage Somali pirates?
> 
> The subtext here is that the enemy is all Muslims and Islam itself, hence targeting Muslim holy places will form a credible deterrent. This is not idle speculation; the repeated incidents of anti-Muslim bigotry by active duty personnel do not appear in a vacuum.



If USA were in a trillion dollar ten year war with the Somali pirates, you betcha there would be such a course too.

The subtext that you refer to is only arising from your own persecution complexes.


----------



## junaid1

LaBong said:


> let me assure you, an average Indian Muslim is more literate and earns more than an average Pakistani Muslim,



ohhhhhhh ........... really .that's news to me  how can you assure that ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zabaniyah

VCheng said:


> One elective course that presents an alternative point of view is "indefensible"? Officers should develop skills necessary to critically evaluate what needs to be done. If one course says "Kill 'em all and nuke Mecca!" they go away knowing that "No, we can't kill them all, and there is no point in nuking Mecca". *The course served its purpose well.*



Then why did they suspend it? There'd been some harsh criticisms from the top levels. Why?


----------



## vsdoc

Zabaniya said:


> Then why did they suspend it? There'd been some harsh criticisms from the top levels. Why?



PR embarrassment on being outed and made a big deal of by giving various spins on it.

We had this shoo sha in India yesterday. About a cartoon from Independence time.

Happily present in NCERT books for over half a decade - till people choose to make a big song and dance about it.


----------



## VCheng

Zabaniya said:


> Then why did they suspend it? There'd been some harsh criticisms from the top levels. Why?



Because the objections of a student require that an investigation be carried out. Add in a little political grandstanding, and there you have it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Developereo

VCheng said:


> If USA were in a trillion dollar ten year war with the Somali pirates, you betcha there would be such a course too.



I wouldn't proclaim that too loudly in the US if I were you. We might tolerate your excesses here on this forum but, if you made such a racist generalization in the US, you would be "excused" from polite company.



VCheng said:


> The subtext that you refer to is only arising from your own persecution complexes.



Sure, escape to labels when you cannot refute the issue itself. The only rationale for collective punishment is the belief that the people so targeted have the power to stop the enemy fighters; i.e. the Muslim "world" is supporting the terrorists. Again, this is not my "complex"; the comments on this very thread make that claim: about Muslims at large being at fault for this situation.

The exact same generalization used to be made of other groups in the past: Italians, Jews, blacks. Oops, I see you resurrected that last generalization, given your earlier comment about Somali pirates.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Icarus

vsdoc said:


> If it comes down to a Crusades type situation, 300 million Americans will not be alone.
> 
> You would probably be polarizing the world into the 2.2+ billion Christians.
> 
> This would include all of Europe. All of Russia.
> 
> IF you gave a religious flavor to this.
> 
> 
> 
> You highly overestimate. 1.6 billion is more like it.




Obviously, that's why they would be crusades, I'm saying America would trigger it.
Secondly, something close to that figure.


----------



## Zabaniyah

VCheng said:


> Because the objections of a student require that an investigation be carried out. Add in a little political grandstanding, and there you have it.



You mean political correctness?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

Developereo said:


> ...............
> The exact same generalization used to be made of other groups in the past: Italians, Jews, blacks. Oops, I see you resurrected that last generalization, given your earlier comment about Somali pirates.



What "racist generalization" did I make about Somali pirates by saying this?

_"If USA were in a trillion dollar ten year war with the Somali pirates, you betcha there would be such a course too."_



Zabaniya said:


> You mean political correctness?



No, I meant grandstanding by politicians.


----------



## VCheng

Icarus said:


> Obviously, that's why they would be crusades, I'm saying America would trigger it.
> Secondly, something close to that figure.



How can there be the Crusades when major portions of western societies are clearly in their post-Christianity phase?


----------



## Developereo

VCheng said:


> What "racist generalization" did I make about Somali pirates by saying this?
> 
> _"If USA were in a trillion dollar ten year war with the Somali pirates, you betcha there would be such a course too."_



In reply to my statement:



Developereo said:


> Do you suppose there is a course at JFSC that "presents an alternative point of view" to nuke major population centers in Africa to discourage Somali pirates?



You wrote:



VCheng said:


> If USA were in a trillion dollar ten year war with the Somali pirates, you betcha there would be such a course too.



Now, if you still don't see why nuking major population centers in Africa is *NOT* the proper response to Somali piracy, then I can't help you.


----------



## vsdoc

Icarus said:


> Obviously, that's why they would be crusades, I'm saying America would trigger it.
> Secondly, something close to that figure.



I'm a little disappointed. Did not take you for one the War of the Civilizations kinda guys.

Firstly, most sources put world Muslim population at 1.6 billion. There is a big difference between 1.6 billion and 2 billion as well.

Christians at 2.2 billion.

Hindus at 1-1.2 billion (this surprised me)

The next two largest groups (besidfes the atheists/agnostics at 1.1 billion) are

Shintoism (Chinese) 400 million

Buddhism 400 million

Secondly, in a war at this scale in today's world, numbers are going to count for squat.

A few well placed nukes on Day 1 and it will be all over for the next few centuries.

What does the Muslim world have to fight back with if it comes to that? 100 odd nukes - which don't go further than 2500 kms?

Versus the combined heft of close to or over 3000 still stockpiled in the Christian world.

All of which can reach all pockets of the Muslim world.

Just putting things in perspective. Before this discussion invites the real loonies out here.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## VCheng

Developereo said:


> ......
> Now, if you still don't see why nuking major population centers in Africa is *NOT* the proper response to Somali piracy, then I can't help you.



Did you notice the first word in my statement?* IF. *

As in IF USA were in a trillion dollar ten year war with the Somali pirates, there would be courses looking at all scenarios, including a course on major nuclear deployment.

Merely logical. I still don't see how you can accuse that rationale of racism against Somalis or anyone else.


----------



## Icarus

VCheng said:


> How can there be the Crusades when major portions of western societies are clearly in their post-Christianity phase?



I did not literally mean that armies with huge gold crucifix would run into each other with swords, trying to seek favour with a God that is probably cursing their stupidity. I meant it in a thoroughly hypothetical manner, drawing a parallel between a Western Society vs The Muslim World War.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## VCheng

Icarus said:


> I did not literally mean that armies with huge gold crucifix would run into each other with swords, trying to seek favour with a God that is probably cursing their stupidity. I meant it in a thoroughly hypothetical manner, drawing a parallel between a Western Society vs The Muslim World War.



I see your point better now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Icarus

vsdoc said:


> I'm a little disappointed. Did not take you for one the War of the Civilizations kinda guys.



I am not, however being a COIN Analyst, It is a part of my job to think like any person, entity, organization, country and then draft policy on how best to nullify the enemy's advantage. Right now, I was analysing the situation from a typical muslim's PoV. He's not going to tolerate this, even the most liberal ones will rise up against this act (Which will probably be no more than an a scenario for Think Tanks to ponder over). 



> Firstly, most sources put world Muslim population at 1.6 billion. There is a big difference between 1.6 billion and 2 billion as well.
> 
> Christians at 2.2 billion.
> 
> Hindus at 1-1.2 billion (this surprised me)
> 
> The next two largest groups (besidfes the atheists/agnostics at 1.1 billion) are
> 
> Shintoism (Chinese) 400 million
> 
> Buddhism 400 million
> 
> Secondly, in a war at this scale in today's world, numbers are going to count for squat.
> 
> A few well placed nukes on Day 1 and it will be all over for the next few centuries.
> 
> What does the Muslim world have to fight back with if it comes to that? 100 odd nukes - which don't go further than 2500 kms?
> 
> Versus the combined heft of close to or over 3000 still stockpiled in the Christian world.
> 
> All of which can reach all pockets of the Muslim world.
> 
> Just putting things in perspective. Before this discussion invites the real loonies out here.




Point Taken, however, you will need some solid common ground to get the Chinese, Hindus and Buddhists on board in this case, I would say even other Western countries might try and dissociate themselves from America under such circumstances to stop their domestic muslim population from going into a manic fit of destructive rage. 

**This discussion is from a purely hypothetical PoV, I do not believe that the US would risk such a move in the first place**


----------



## Developereo

VCheng said:


> Did you notice the first word in my statement?* IF. *
> 
> As in IF USA were in a trillion dollar ten year war with the Somali pirates, there would be courses looking at all scenarios, including a course on major nuclear deployment.
> 
> Merely logical. I still don't see how you can accuse that rationale of racism against Somalis or anyone else.



It rationalizes collective generalization on two fronts:

First, it says that if Somali pirates do XYZ, then we will nuke a million blacks in Africa. Doesn't matter if these other blacks have anything to do with the pirates. This black, that black, doesn't matter. As long as we kill a million of "them", that's all that matters.

Secondly, it presupposes that black people form a collective conspiracy; that threatening a million blacks _here_ will dissuade the Somali pirates _there_ from their activities. In other words, it holds random blacks hundreds of miles away hostage to the actions of some criminals.

In the same way this course promotes the notion that punishing Muslims as a whole will form a credible deterrent against terrorism.

P.S. Anyway, let's drop it. Since I don't believe you are racist, I know that you made the statement only as a thoughtless remark.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## laiqs@mi

I think Vchang also got electrolytes...... he is a genius because he got electrolytes.
some people will get my point


----------



## VCheng

Icarus said:


> ...................
> **This discussion is from a purely hypothetical PoV, I do not believe that the US would risk such a move in the first place**



I wish other people would also understand what this statement of yours means!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## VCheng

Developereo said:


> It rationalizes collective generalization on two fronts:
> 
> First, it says that if Somali pirates do XYZ, then we will nuke a million blacks in Africa. Doesn't matter if these other blacks have anything to do with the pirates. This black, that black, doesn't matter. As long as we kill a million of "them", that's all that matters.
> 
> Secondly, it presupposes that black people form a collective conspiracy; that threatening a million blacks _here_ will dissuade the Somali pirates _there_ from their activities. In other words, it holds random blacks hundreds of miles away hostage to the actions of some criminals.
> 
> In the same way this course promotes the notion that punishing Muslims as a whole will form a credible deterrent against terrorism.



Not at all.

It merely shows that if one is in a long war, one must think out all possible scenarios.

That is all.

The course merely presented one point of view; it does not promote anything.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

VCheng said:


> Did you notice the first word in my statement?* IF. *
> 
> As in IF USA were in a trillion dollar ten year war with the Somali pirates, there would be courses looking at all scenarios, including a course on major nuclear deployment.
> 
> Merely logical. I still don't see how you can accuse that rationale of racism against Somalis or anyone else.


How does a US war against a band of pirates (or group of terrorists) justify 'studying' the annihilation of entire African/Muslim nations?

That argument would be the equivalent to 'studying' nuking most of Latin America given the 'war on drugs' for all these decades and the significantly higher casualties and socio-economic damage resulting from drug related trade and crime, compared to casualties and damages from piracy/terrorism.

Or, perhaps 'study' nuking low income/crime infested black/Latino neighborhoods in the US as well...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hafizzz

Big Boss said:


> *US suspends 'war on Islam' military course*
> 
> "They hate everything you stand for and will never coexist with you, unless you submit ," the instructor, army Lt Col Matthew Dooley, said in a presentation last July for the course at Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, Virginia.



How IRONIC. It is the USA who is FORCING every country out there to accept everything she does in the name of democracy and hates it when you disagree. Like George Bush once said , "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.".


----------



## vsdoc

Icarus said:


> Point Taken, however, you will need some solid common ground to get the Chinese, Hindus and Buddhists on board in this case, I would say even other Western countries might try and dissociate themselves from America under such circumstances to stop their domestic muslim population from going into a manic fit of destructive rage.



3000+ nukes are Christian nations alone. All with proven ICBMs and Cruise missile delivery platforms over decades.

India, China, and even Israel will not get involved. They do not need to. They cannot afford to.

If anything, they will be more bothered by the nuclear fallout. And Pakistanis nuking them in their last gasp death throes.

You other point of civilian populations in this doomsday scenario is null and void. They would be worse than refugees within their own countries. There would be no "manic rage." Just the disassociation of survival.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## epsilon

Super Mario bros


----------



## VCheng

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> How does a US war against a band of pirates (or group of terrorists) justify 'studying' the annihilation of entire African/Muslim nations?...........



Comprehension helps: *IF *the war with Somali pirates took _ten years_ and _a trillion dollars_...... then studying ALL scenarios including nuclear deployment would be done.

Is that band of pirates that resourceful? No. Hence the rest of it is merely hypothetical.

But of course, the jumping to irrational conclusions is typical for the seniors at DefPk.


----------



## vsdoc

Developereo said:


> It rationalizes collective generalization on two fronts:
> 
> First, it says that if Somali pirates do XYZ, then we will nuke a million blacks in Africa. Doesn't matter if these other blacks have anything to do with the pirates. This black, that black, doesn't matter. As long as we kill a million of "them", that's all that matters.
> 
> Secondly, it presupposes that black people form a collective conspiracy; that threatening a million blacks _here_ will dissuade the Somali pirates _there_ from their activities. In other words, it holds random blacks hundreds of miles away hostage to the actions of some criminals.
> 
> In the same way this course promotes the notion that punishing Muslims as a whole will form a credible deterrent against terrorism.
> 
> P.S. Anyway, let's drop it. Since I don't believe you are racist, I know that you made the statement only as a thoughtless remark.



Get a grip before denouncing someone as a racist.

Black people are a race.

Muslims are not.

The word you were looking for was xenophobe.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

VCheng said:


> Comprehension helps: *IF *the war with Somali pirates took _ten years_ and _a trillion dollars_...... then studying ALL scenarios including nuclear deployment would be done.


'Comprehension' does help - my comment was made keeping your 'IF' in mind, since even with your 'IF', the argument is the same:
_"How does a US war against a band of pirates (or group of terrorists) justify 'studying' the annihilation of entire African/Muslim nations?"_


> But of course, the jumping to irrational conclusions is typical for the seniors at DefPk.


Not at all, what is 'typical' are your circular arguments and distorted logic ...

So, where is the study on nuking Latin America given the decades of 'war on drugs' and countless deaths, crime and resources spent because of it?



vsdoc said:


> Get a grip before denouncing someone as a racist.
> 
> Black people are a race.
> 
> Muslims are not.
> 
> The word you were looking for was xenophobe.


Semantics - I believe he got his point across ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Icarus

vsdoc said:


> 3000+ nukes are Christian nations alone. All with proven ICBMs and Cruise missile delivery platforms over decades.
> 
> India, China, and even Israel will not get involved. They do not need to. They cannot afford to.
> 
> If anything, they will be more bothered by the nuclear fallout. And Pakistanis nuking them in their last gasp death throes.
> 
> You other point of civilian populations in this doomsday scenario is null and void. They would be worse than refugees within their own countries. There would be no "manic rage." Just the disassociation of survival.




Well, my friend we just reached the point that Einstein mentioned in his famous quote:

"I don't know what WWIII will be fought with but the fourth will be fought with sticks and stones"

In a universe that we just imagined, the war, should it go nuclear, will result in Nuclear Holocaust and there will be more casualties from the post-Nuke Det radiation then from the explosions themselves, crops will fail, radiation poisoning will spread, economies will collapse, international market will be in ruin, the fuel supply will be reduced to a trickle (We just nuked the Iranians/Saudis), society as we know it will collapse and there will be anarchy. Like I said, we would be thrown back into the middle ages.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

*Threads merged and section changed*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Developereo

Drug War Clock | DrugSense

$15 trillion and counting...



vsdoc said:


> Get a grip before denouncing someone as a racist.
> 
> Black people are a race.
> 
> Muslims are not.
> 
> The word you were looking for was xenophobe.



No, the word is racist. Read the posts in context.

I gave the analogy of black Somali pirates and the nuking of random African cities as a deterrent. The generalization in that case was racial (as in all blacks are interchangeable).

The generalization against Muslims is characterized as bigotry.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## vsdoc

Icarus said:


> Well, my friend we just reached the point that Einstein mentioned in his famous quote:
> 
> "I don't know what WWIII will be fought with but the fourth will be fought with sticks and stones"
> 
> In a universe that we just imagined, the war, should it go nuclear, will result in Nuclear Holocaust and there will be more casualties from the post-Nuke Det radiation then from the explosions themselves, crops will fail, radiation poisoning will spread, economies will collapse, international market will be in ruin, the fuel supply will be reduced to a trickle (We just nuked the Iranians/Saudis), society as we know it will collapse and there will be anarchy. Like I said, we would be thrown back into the middle ages.



This Nuclear Winter is past its sell by date and has been debunked by many experts who specialize in nuclear targetting and weapon yields.

It is said that all nuclear weapons detonated together are still not enough to destroy the earth.

Yes, there will be widspread death and famine.

But look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They are thriving cities with clean air and abundant flora and fauna. Its like nothing happened.

Please remember what we are discussing here is strictly not WWIII.

It is the Crusades in the modern world.

Non-muslims and non-christians are not going to get involved.

Do you know its possible to kill millions without damaging the oil fields? 

Do you also know that there are huge oil deposits the Christian world sits on waiting for the Gulf oil to run out?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lem34

VCheng said:


> One elective course that presents an alternative point of view is "indefensible"? Officers should develop skills necessary to critically evaluate what needs to be done. If one course says "Kill 'em all and nuke Mecca!" they go away knowing that "No, we can't kill them all, and there is no point in nuking Mecca". The course served its purpose well.



Even Americans are not defending it Cheng. What is the matter with you mate

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

Aryan_B said:


> Even Americans are not defending it Cheng. What is the matter with you mate



Saying what is correct is never a popularity contest.

I do not temper or influence my positions by who is on what side or which way the wind is blowing.

This is called independent thought. Try it some time. You, and most others here, may find it liberating.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lem34

VCheng said:


> Saying what is correct is never a popularity contest.
> 
> I do not temper or influence my positions by who is on what side or which way the wind is blowing.
> 
> This is called independent thought. Try it some time. You, and most others here, may find it liberating.



Is that what you call blind devotion to American ruling regime and establishment

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Skallagrim

They have taught the course for years and only now we come to know about it, why not since the adoption of the course? After all this is not a private institution and US military can't avoid the responsibilty which probably they would be trying by engaging their zionist controlled media which would accomplish this assignment by making a scapegoat of this Lt col Matthew Dooles and maybe by further discrediting him as a psycho.


----------



## vsdoc

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Semantics - I believe he got his point across ...



Nice to finally bump into you. I was asking around about where you've been.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Skallagrim

Now the lesson to learn for us Muslims is that the hypothetical scenario and the hypothetical preemptive war they were/are designing, being taught in a top military school, is to be taken seriously and this definitely may become a reality in future. It doesn't matter at all what we think of ourselves, but the judeo-christian atheist and the indo-pagan fear us is a reality and at any time we may become a victim of their fear. Now don't indulge into the romantic thinking that you would be able to educate them and your own 'demonic extremist' brethren and appease your enlightened superior western friends and probably their cohorts in the subcontinent. This is not practically possible. Rather we have to establish justice in your society because the lack of it would individualize our people seeking their personal interests only, forgetting everything above their selfish being. Establishing justice would increase the cohesiveness among our people and boost their moral which would then result into channeling their strength and effort in a different but positive direction to achieve a desired level of survivality. Our greatest enemy is the 'enlightened educated' us who in their romanticism think that the era of war is gone and now peace and peace is everywhere.


----------



## jha

Whatever happened to " Prepare for the worst "..? 

I bet every Army prepares for their own worst scenarios..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

jha said:


> Whatever happened to " Prepare for the worst "..?
> 
> I bet every Army prepares for their own worst scenarios..



That philosophy is alive and well, and serves all major military forces of the world.

What people fail to realize is that all the recent political hoopla is directed towards a small elective course running for years with no ill effects has two main aims. Domestically, it will rile up the right wingers before Presidential elections by forcing Obama into being politically correct so that he can be accused of appeasement. Internationally, it will rankle religious hotheads even more so that they continue to wreak havoc among their own nations. (Perhaps also to rile up websites such as this? Who knows!  )

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vinod2070

Icarus said:


> I don't know who green lighted this course but whoever did, I hope they also added in the preface that such an event would signal the next crusades. Right now, less than 500,000 rag tag militants are keeping about 60 of the world's most advanced armed forces busy and giving them a real run for their money, the ISAF enjoys massive amount of local co-operation. If the holy sites are attacked however, you will be fighting 2 Billion people!
> We'll all be pushed back into the middle ages.


 
It is because the West has not chosen to employ the "Mongol tactics" so far.

This thread is precisely about the scenario when the current strategy of LIC doesn't work.

We all better hope (for your own sake) that it doesn't come to that.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## jha

VCheng said:


> *That philosophy is alive and well, and serves all major military forces of the world.*
> 
> What people fail to realize is that all the recent political hoopla is directed towards a small elective course running for years with no ill effects has two main aims. Domestically, it will rile up the right wingers before Presidential elections by forcing Obama into being politically correct so that he can be accused of appeasement. Internationally, it will rankle religious hotheads even more so that they continue to wreak havoc among their own nations. (Perhaps also to rile up websites such as this? Who knows!  )



Why is this so difficult for some posters to understand..

This is just an elective course...Why so hoopla around this..?



VCheng said:


> *That philosophy is alive and well, and serves all major military forces of the world.*
> 
> What people fail to realize is that all the recent political hoopla is directed towards a small elective course running for years with no ill effects has two main aims. Domestically, it will rile up the right wingers before Presidential elections by forcing Obama into being politically correct so that he can be accused of appeasement. Internationally, it will rankle religious hotheads even more so that they continue to wreak havoc among their own nations. (Perhaps also to rile up websites such as this? Who knows!  )



Why is this so difficult for some posters to understand..

This is just an elective course...Why so hoopla around this..?


----------



## King Solomon

Vinod2070 said:


> It is because the West has not chosen to employ the "Mongol tactics" so far.
> 
> This thread is precisely about the scenario when the current strategy of LIC doesn't work.
> 
> We all better hope (for your own sake) that it doesn't come to that.



Yes. At present, Muslims have no chance of doing anything and have to face up with this reality. US/Israel can nuke Mecca/Medina and get away with little or no repercussions at that.

The scenario is of course at hand. The slightest unrest in the Saudi royal family and US will immediately launch a full scale invasion of Saudi arabia to preserve the petrodollar - in which Mecca/Medina may be nuked/destroyed. The scenario was planned in 1970s and it would be naive to believe the plans have been abandoned.


----------



## lem34

S-19 said:


> Yes. At present, Muslims have no chance of doing anything and have to face up with this reality. US/Israel can nuke Mecca/Medina and get away with little or no repercussions at that.
> 
> The scenario is of course at hand. The slightest unrest in the Saudi royal family and US will immediately launch a full scale invasion of Saudi arabia to preserve the petrodollar - in which Mecca/Medina may be nuked/destroyed. The scenario was planned in 1970s and it would be naive to believe the plans have been abandoned.



I am sure Pakistani nukes could flatten Tel Aviv. Remember Tel Aviv is more important to Americans than Washington


----------



## King Solomon

Aryan_B said:


> I am sure Pakistani nukes could flatten Tel Aviv. Remember Tel Aviv is more important to Americans than Washington



Would pakistan risk getting nuked and destroyed in return? Pakistan's nukes can act as a *deterrent*, as it is doing now. But in all probabilities in case they DO decide to nuke Mecca/Medina, unfortunately it cannot help much.


----------



## SQ8

S-19 said:


> Would pakistan risk getting nuked and destroyed in return? Pakistan's nukes can act as a *deterrent*, as it is doing now. But in all probabilities in case they DO decide to nuke Mecca/Medina, unfortunately it cannot help much.



depends on the value of lives..
The deterrence is just that..
The Israelis fight for each life they call their own..
On the other hand.. Pakistanis hold little value for life when it comes to religion...whats losing 50 million when such a catastrophe has occurred.


----------



## r3alist

> One elective course that presents an alternative point of view is "indefensible"? Officers should develop skills necessary to critically evaluate what needs to be done. If one course says "Kill 'em all and nuke Mecca!" they go away knowing that "No, we can't kill them all, and there is no point in nuking Mecca". The course served its purpose well.




this is the most hilarious spin ever, truly epic, what you have done is turned this situation into a positive for the us and alleviated and crime of spreading hate because apparently its up to the officers to be critical of the content. apparently there was only ONE (or a few at most) who objected, only a few!!

never mind that they cannot pass the exam if they dont regurgitate the material!!


and another hilarious thing....truly hilarious and sad.......you referred to this course as "an alternative viewpoint" - thats right, JUST an alternative viewpoint, a mere exercise in gaming out a scenario - truly brilliant spin doctoring - talking about the destruction of mecca and medina as a alternative viewpoint!!


----------



## AUz

LaBong said:


> This thread has nothing to do with Indian Muslims, but since you brought them, let me assure you, an average Indian Muslim is more literate and earns more than an average Pakistani Muslim, and has far less probability of getting blown up in pieces while he is praying in a masjid.
> 
> As far as Hindus living in KSA is concerned, rich coming from a Pakistani living in USA and considering how your Arabian brothers treat you.



All wrong. 

An "average Pakistani" earns almost the same as "average Indian" ... Now Indian Muslims are LOWEST in societal pyramid of India...hence...their "average annual wage" is way less than overall average , right? Hence a Pakistani Muslim lives a WAY better life than an average 2nd class citizen of India (Indian Muslim). 

Now , regarding violence , well we are in the midst of a war. What do you expect, flowers and roses? Albeit Indian Muslims were burnt alive and raped even in the peaceful times (Gujarat for e.g) ...

Lastly , not only in the U.S.A , but I have actually lived in Saudi Arabia too. Saudis , atleast the grown up men , respect Pakistanis more than the Indian "hindus". Sorry to put it blatantly but this is what the case is. Young Saudis however see everyone as "Ajnabis"... 

Why you even brought Pakistan in when the main premise of my post was to show the behavior of general Indian public towards Islam and Muslims? You can go and read comments by yourself. Hate and only hate. Why is that , may I ask?


----------



## lem34

S-19 said:


> Would pakistan risk getting nuked and destroyed in return? Pakistan's nukes can act as a *deterrent*, as it is doing now. But in all probabilities in case they DO decide to nuke Mecca/Medina, unfortunately it cannot help much.


 

I dread to think of the effect on the planet of releasing 100 nukes. Would it be livable??


----------



## Wright

Oscar said:


> depends on the value of lives..
> The deterrence is just that..
> The Israelis fight for each life they call their own..
> On the other hand.. Pakistanis hold little value for life when it comes to religion...whats losing 50 million when such a catastrophe has occurred.



If you touch Israel their philosophy tells them to flatten any aggressor country and its allies. I assume their nukes are more advanced then Pakistan's. And they most likely have ICBM capability, judging from their SLV. 

Oh and Israel borders Jordan, Egypt, etc. you will kill more Muslims than Jews. 

There is no way you will get away with it. They will lose 7 million, but you will lose much more. Karachi alone has 13 million residents. 

Furthermore humans are biologically programmed to survive and pass on their genes. I seriously doubt Pakistan will take on the role of saving the Arab's face and eliminate itself in the process. Especially not the educated middle and upper class. 

Religion can make one do crazy things, but mass suicide is something new.



Aryan_B said:


> I dread to think of the effect on the planet of releasing 100 nukes. Would it be livable??



Buddy remember the dinosaurs? Yeah something catastrophic happened, but look at the planet teeming with life. 

Life is adaptive and resilient.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## pakdefender

Vinod2070 said:


> It is because the West has not chosen to employ the "Mongol tactics" so far.
> 
> This thread is precisely about the scenario when the current strategy of LIC doesn't work.
> 
> We all better hope (for your own sake) that it doesn't come to that.



This is all hog wash that the west hasnt employed full force , its a fact that more bombs have been dropped in Iraq and Afghanistan than the amout that was dropped during World War II.

After open declaration of War on Islam , any attack on Makkah and Madina would cause an immediate end to the relationship between West and rest of the Muslim world which includes the oil producing gulf states ( whether their leaders like it not , they will have no choice ).

West's main advantage over Muslim countries is industralization , mechanisation and air power .. all of these require fossil fuels, vast majority of which comes from Muslism lands. Wihtout a free running supply of oil the attack against Islam cannot last very long.

In terms if strenght of faith , wihtout a doubt , Muslism have the advantage.



S-19 said:


> Would pakistan risk getting nuked and destroyed in return? Pakistan's nukes can act as a *deterrent*, as it is doing now. But in all probabilities in case they DO decide to nuke Mecca/Medina, unfortunately it cannot help much.



If our Holy sites are attacked and war is declared on our religon , then we have the ability to strike at the heart of the enemy.

When Pakistan was getting ready to do the nuclear test , Israelis were gettiing a lot of pain and they were intending to attack Pakistan's nuclear sites via Inida, PAF planned counter attack which was essentially a one way mission to hit back at the enemy with no turning back of the pilots.

Just in case you dont know we do have air launched nuclear strike capability.


----------



## King Solomon

Oscar said:


> depends on the value of lives..
> The deterrence is just that..
> The Israelis fight for each life they call their own..
> On the other hand.. Pakistanis hold little value for life when it comes to religion...whats losing 50 million when such a catastrophe has occurred.





Aryan_B said:


> I dread to think of the effect on the planet of releasing 100 nukes. Would it be livable??


 
Well, in reality, the effect of nukes is highly overrated.. According to official data, pakistan/india's nukes are no more than 50 kT. 

Let us imagine a hypothetical scenario

To destroy Israeli cities completely you would need *many dozens (at least 50)* of nuclear weapons of 50 kT many of which would probably be shot down by ABM systems. Calculate the estimated efffects of nuke here : Federation of American Scientists :: Nuclear Weapon Effects Calculator

Or the nukemap: NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein

Then what? India would be easily able to take over pakistan and pakistan would probably be nuked by US navy in Persian gulf. Pakistan would become Indian territory. Would pakistan want that? 

I think you should look at US nuclear doctrine: If any country other than major powers even *threatens* to use nuclear weapons, it would be legitimate for US to nuke that country. In case of pakistan, if pakistan *prepares* to nuke Israel after Israel nuked Mecca/Medina, most probably US would go for a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Pakistan (according to its nuclear doctrine). There is no way pakistan can survive that unfortunately.



pakdefender said:


> If our Holy sites are attacks and war is declared on our religon , then we have the ability to strike at the heart of the enemy.
> 
> When Pakistan was getting ready to do the nuclear test , Israelis were gettiing a lot of pain and they were intending to attack Pakistan's nuclear sites via Inida, PAF planned counter attack which was essentially a one way mission to hit back at the enemy with no turning back of the pilots.
> 
> Just in case you dont know we do have air launched nuclear strike capability.



Unfortunately you do not. Look at my previous post. All muslim countries are powerless and at the mercy of the aggressors if US/Israel does decide to nuke Mecca/Medina

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## pakdefender

S-19 said:


> Well, in reality, the effect of nukes is highly overrated.. According to official data, pakistan/india's nukes are no more than 50 kT.
> 
> Let us imagine a hypothetical scenario
> 
> To destroy Israeli cities completely you would need *many dozens (at least 50)* of nuclear weapons of 50 kT many of which would probably be shot down by ABM systems. Calculate the estimated efffects of nuke here : Federation of American Scientists :: Nuclear Weapon Effects Calculator
> 
> Or the nukemap: NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein
> 
> Then what? India would be easily able to take over pakistan and pakistan would probably be nuked by US navy in Persian gulf. Pakistan would become Indian territory. Would pakistan want that?
> 
> I think you should look at US nuclear doctrine: If any country other than major powers even *threatens* to use nuclear weapons, it would be legitimate for US to nuke that country. In case of pakistan, if pakistan *prepares* to nuke Israel after Israel nuked Mecca/Medina, most probably US would go for a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Pakistan (according to its nuclear doctrine). There is no way pakistan can survive that unfortunately.
> 
> 
> 
> *Unfortunately you do not. Look at my previous post. All muslim countries are powerless and at the mercy of the aggressors if US/Israel does decide to nuke Mecca/Medina*



The enemy can pull the trigger and find out who will be at whose mercy afterwards


----------



## King Solomon

pakdefender said:


> The enemy can pull the trigger and find out who will be at whose mercy afterwards



You are being too emotional and ignoring the reality at hand. Maybe you hadn't read my previous post fully.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## King Solomon

pakdefender said:


> West's main advantage over Muslim countries is industralization , mechanisation and air power .. all of these require fossil fuels, vast majority of which comes from Muslism lands. Wihtout a free running supply of oil the attack against Islam cannot last very long.



That is a big misconception. Very big one at that. Do you have any idea of the amount of fossil fuel reserves of Russia and USA? It is* far more* than what Saudi Arabia or the middle east has. Russia is a major energy exporter. USA can be too if it wishes however, it prefers to meddle in ME.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## lem34

S-19 said:


> Well, in reality, the effect of nukes is highly overrated.. According to official data, pakistan/india's nukes are no more than 50 kT.
> 
> Let us imagine a hypothetical scenario
> 
> To destroy Israeli cities completely you would need *many dozens (at least 50)* of nuclear weapons of 50 kT many of which would probably be shot down by ABM systems. Calculate the estimated efffects of nuke here : Federation of American Scientists :: Nuclear Weapon Effects Calculator
> 
> Or the nukemap: NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein
> 
> Then what? India would be easily able to take over pakistan and pakistan would probably be nuked by US navy in Persian gulf. Pakistan would become Indian territory. Would pakistan want that?



Yet other scientists disagree:

Updated: Feb. 25, 2011; 11:40 p.m. EST

WASHINGTON &#8212; Even a small nuclear exchange could ignite mega-firestorms and wreck the planet&#8217;s atmosphere.

New climatological simulations show 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear bombs &#8212; relatively small warheads, compared to the arsenals military superpowers stow today &#8212; detonated by neighboring countries would destroy more than a quarter of the Earth&#8217;s ozone layer in about two years.

Regions closer to the poles would see even more precipitous drops in the protective gas, which absorbs harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. New York and Sydney, for example, would see declines rivaling the perpetual hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica. And it may take more than six years for the ozone layer to reach half of its former levels.

Researchers described the results during a panel Feb. 18 at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, calling it &#8220;a real bummer&#8221; that such a localized nuclear war could bring the modern world to its knees.

&#8220;This is tremendously dangerous,&#8221; said environmental scientist Alan Robock of Rutgers University, one of the climate scientists presenting at the meeting. &#8220;The climate change would be unprecedented in human history, and you can imagine the world &#8230; would just shut down.&#8221;

To defuse the complexity involved in a nuclear climate catastrophe, Wired.com sat down with Michael Mills, an atmospheric chemist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, who led some of the latest simulation efforts.
&#8216;It&#8217;s pretty clear this would lead to a global nuclear famine.&#8217;

Wired.com: In your simulation, a war between India and Pakistan breaks out. Each country launches 50 nukes at their opponent&#8217;s cities. What happens after the first bomb goes off?

Michael Mills: The initial explosions ignite fires in the cities, and those fires would build up for hours. What you eventually get is a firestorm, something on the level we saw in World War II in cities like Dresden, in Tokyo, Hiroshima and so on.

Today we have larger cities than we did then &#8212; mega cities. And using 100 weapons on these different mega cities, like those in India and Pakistan, would cause these firestorms to build on themselves. They would create their own weather and start sucking air through bottom. People and objects would be sucked into buildings from the winds, basically burning everything in the city. It&#8217;ll burn concrete, the temperatures get so hot. It converts mega cities into black carbon smoke.

Atmospheric scientist Michael Mills of NCAR. Dave Mosher/Wired.com

Wired.com: I see &#8212; the firestorms push up the air, and ash, into the atmosphere?

Mills: Yeah. You sometimes see these firestorms in large forest fires in Canada, in Siberia. In those cases, you see a lot of this black carbon getting into the stratosphere, but not on the level we&#8217;re talking about in a nuclear exchange.

The primary cause of ozone loss is the heating of the stratosphere by that smoke. Temperatures initially increase by more than 100 degrees Celsius, and remain more than 30 degrees higher than normal for more than 3 years. The higher temperatures increase the rates of two reaction cycles that deplete ozone.

Wired.com: And the ozone layer is in the stratosphere, correct?

Mills: OK, so we live in the troposphere, which is about 8 kilometers [5 miles] thick at the poles, and 16 km [10 miles] at the equator.

At the top of the troposphere, you start to encounter the stratosphere. It&#8217;s defined by the presence of the ozone layer, with the densest ozone at the lowest part, then it tails off at the stratopause, where the stratosphere ends about 50 km [30 miles] up.

We have a lot of weather in the troposphere. That&#8217;s because energy is being absorbed at the Earth&#8217;s surface, so it&#8217;s warmest at the surface. As you go up in the atmosphere it gets colder. Well, that all turns around as you get to the ozone layer. It starts getting hotter because ozone is absorbing ultraviolet radiation, until you run out of ozone and it starts getting colder again. Then you&#8217;re at the mesosphere

How One Nuclear Skirmish Could Wreck the Planet | Wired Science | Wired.com



S-19 said:


> Then what? India would be easily able to take over pakistan and pakistan would probably be nuked by US navy in Persian gulf. Pakistan would become Indian territory. Would pakistan want that?



Well I would assume that Pakistan has at least 200 nukes now I mean they were reported to have 100 odd years ago. Pakistan could launch nukes at Israel and would for the reason you mention want to knock some Indian capability. India would be worried about China and may launch at China. It just is not funny. Anyone up for risking all? I doubt it. In history there have always been empires which have appeared omnipotent until they are exposed not to be so


----------



## King Solomon

Aryan_B said:


> Yet other scientists disagree:
> 
> Updated: Feb. 25, 2011; 11:40 p.m. EST
> 
> WASHINGTON &#8212; Even a small nuclear exchange could ignite mega-firestorms and wreck the planet&#8217;s atmosphere.
> 
> New climatological simulations show 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear bombs &#8212; relatively small warheads, compared to the arsenals military superpowers stow today &#8212; detonated by neighboring countries would destroy more than a quarter of the Earth&#8217;s ozone layer in about two years.
> 
> Regions closer to the poles would see even more precipitous drops in the protective gas, which absorbs harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. New York and Sydney, for example, would see declines rivaling the perpetual hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica. And it may take more than six years for the ozone layer to reach half of its former levels.
> 
> Researchers described the results during a panel Feb. 18 at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, calling it &#8220;a real bummer&#8221; that such a localized nuclear war could bring the modern world to its knees.
> 
> &#8220;This is tremendously dangerous,&#8221; said environmental scientist Alan Robock of Rutgers University, one of the climate scientists presenting at the meeting. &#8220;The climate change would be unprecedented in human history, and you can imagine the world &#8230; would just shut down.&#8221;
> 
> To defuse the complexity involved in a nuclear climate catastrophe, Wired.com sat down with Michael Mills, an atmospheric chemist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, who led some of the latest simulation efforts.
> &#8216;It&#8217;s pretty clear this would lead to a global nuclear famine.&#8217;
> 
> Wired.com: In your simulation, a war between India and Pakistan breaks out. Each country launches 50 nukes at their opponent&#8217;s cities. What happens after the first bomb goes off?
> 
> Michael Mills: The initial explosions ignite fires in the cities, and those fires would build up for hours. What you eventually get is a firestorm, something on the level we saw in World War II in cities like Dresden, in Tokyo, Hiroshima and so on.
> 
> Today we have larger cities than we did then &#8212; mega cities. And using 100 weapons on these different mega cities, like those in India and Pakistan, would cause these firestorms to build on themselves. They would create their own weather and start sucking air through bottom. People and objects would be sucked into buildings from the winds, basically burning everything in the city. It&#8217;ll burn concrete, the temperatures get so hot. It converts mega cities into black carbon smoke.
> 
> Atmospheric scientist Michael Mills of NCAR. Dave Mosher/Wired.com
> 
> Wired.com: I see &#8212; the firestorms push up the air, and ash, into the atmosphere?
> 
> Mills: Yeah. You sometimes see these firestorms in large forest fires in Canada, in Siberia. In those cases, you see a lot of this black carbon getting into the stratosphere, but not on the level we&#8217;re talking about in a nuclear exchange.
> 
> The primary cause of ozone loss is the heating of the stratosphere by that smoke. Temperatures initially increase by more than 100 degrees Celsius, and remain more than 30 degrees higher than normal for more than 3 years. The higher temperatures increase the rates of two reaction cycles that deplete ozone.
> 
> Wired.com: And the ozone layer is in the stratosphere, correct?
> 
> Mills: OK, so we live in the troposphere, which is about 8 kilometers [5 miles] thick at the poles, and 16 km [10 miles] at the equator.
> 
> At the top of the troposphere, you start to encounter the stratosphere. It&#8217;s defined by the presence of the ozone layer, with the densest ozone at the lowest part, then it tails off at the stratopause, where the stratosphere ends about 50 km [30 miles] up.
> 
> We have a lot of weather in the troposphere. That&#8217;s because energy is being absorbed at the Earth&#8217;s surface, so it&#8217;s warmest at the surface. As you go up in the atmosphere it gets colder. Well, that all turns around as you get to the ozone layer. It starts getting hotter because ozone is absorbing ultraviolet radiation, until you run out of ozone and it starts getting colder again. Then you&#8217;re at the mesosphere
> 
> How One Nuclear Skirmish Could Wreck the Planet | Wired Science | Wired.com
> 
> 
> 
> Well I would assume that Pakistan has at least 200 nukes now I mean they were reported to have 100 odd years ago. Pakistan could launch nukes at Israel and would for the reason you mention want to knock some Indian capability. India would be worried about China and may launch at China. It just is not funny. Anyone up for risking all? I doubt it. In history there have always been empires which have appeared omnipotent until they are exposed not to be so



I think that is nuclear winter. Yes, ozone layer would deplet and it would lead to increased cancer cases. But I personaly think such effects are overestimated because already more than 1500 nuke tests of far higher yield has taken place...

But more concern is of the nuclear plants ie. Chernobyl was more dangerous than all nuclear tests combined.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## pakdefender

S-19 said:


> I think that is nuclear winter. Yes, ozone layer would deplet and it would lead to increased cancer cases. But I personaly think such effects are overestimated because already more than 1500 nuke tests of far higher yield has taken place...
> 
> But more concern is of the nuclear plants ie. *Chernobyl was more dangerous than all nuclear tests combined*.



Those who will perish in nuclear exchange will probably be the lucky ones as those who will be left will suffer a lot more.

Russian government hasnt been very forth coming about the Chernobyl accident and its aftermath , the affects of nuclear fallout are not over estimated rather under estiamted.

[Graphic content]
CHERNOBYL: Death, Poison, Deformity « Reed Perry


----------



## King Solomon

pakdefender said:


> Those who will perish in nuclear exchange will probably be the lucky ones as those who will be left will suffer a lot more.
> 
> Russian government hasnt been very forth coming about the Chernobyl accident and its aftermath , the affects of nuclear fallout are not over estimated rather under estiamted.
> 
> [Graphic content]
> CHERNOBYL: Death, Poison, Deformity « Reed Perry



much depends on the type of nuclear/fissile material used. Otherwise, yes, it *is* overestimated/overrated.


----------



## pakdefender

S-19 said:


> That is a big misconception. Very big one at that. Do you have any idea of the amount of fossil fuel reserves of Russia and USA? It is* far more* than what Saudi Arabia or the middle east has. Russia is a major energy exporter. USA can be too if it wishes however, it prefers to meddle in ME.



It takes time to develop an oil filed , while there may be large reserves they are not being actively used for extracting oil , no corporation will put its money on a field that they cannot extract oil from so these reserves cannot be just brought online over night. Sudden shortage oil will be disastrous for the western war machine.


----------



## pakdefender

S-19 said:


> much depends on the type of nuclear/fissile material used. Otherwise, yes, it *is* overestimated/overrated.



If comrade S-19 says so then effects of nuclear radiation must be over rated and overestimated that&#8217;s why in the aftermath of Chernobyl, Russian soldiers were sent in to cover the reactor core with nothing more than gas masks ( afterwards almost all of them got some sickness )

Chernobyl, in many ways, hastened the fall of the Soviet Union as there was a lot cover up in the aftermath of the disaster but eventually people realised that the acts of their government are putting them in misery.

Should the west start a war with Islam, western population will suffer in the aftermath which will mean quick fall of the war mongering government in the west.


----------



## King Solomon

pakdefender said:


> It takes time to develop an oil filed , while there may be large reserves they are not being actively used for extracting oil , no corporation will put its money on a field that they cannot extract oil from so these reserves cannot be just brought online over night. Sudden shortage oil will be disastrous for the western war machine.



US produces about 10 billion barrels/day, position just after Russia and KSA. However, consumes about 19 billion barrels/day.

Even if ALL of its oil imports are stopped, which is very *unlikely even if Hormuz is blocked*, 10 billion/day is enough for its military.



pakdefender said:


> If comarade S-19 says so then effects of nuclear radiation must be over rated and overestimated that&#8217;s why in the aftermath of chernobyl, russian soldiers were sent in to cover the reactor core with nothing more than gas masks ( afterwards almost all of them got some sickness )



As I said it depends on the fissile material being used. Chernobyls main problem was the Radon gas which leaked.



pakdefender said:


> It takes time to develop an oil filed , while there may be large reserves they are not being actively used for extracting oil , no corporation will put its money on a field that they cannot extract oil from so these reserves cannot be just brought online over night. Sudden shortage oil will be disastrous for the western war machine.










Only about 20% of oil imports would be blocked if Hormuz is blocked.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Perhaps some of you might recall Muse's posts on the subject of the 'mindset of US Military Officers' he interacted with in Afghanistan and elsewhere - he pointed out that a significant majority of them harbored the very mindset that this course, IMO, was attempting to ingrain into the US Military - one of irrational hate and prejudice towards 'Muslims' in an attempt to dehumanize them.

Muse mentioned his interactions and observations of the US Military mindset to make the point that people advocating for any kind of 'strategic or substantive military/intelligence relationship' between the US and Pakistan were wrong, since the mindset on the US side was geared towards viewing Pakistan as the enemy regardless of how much cooperation Pakistan provided in the 'War on Terror'.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Wright

pakdefender said:


> Should the west start a war with Islam, western population will suffer in the aftermath which will mean quick fall of the war mongering government in the west.



That is what we are trying to figure out. How can Egyptian's, Bangladeshi's, Somalians, Jordanians, Pakistani's, Afghan's do that without ICBM or blue water navy?

I am having a hard time understanding this assertion.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## VCheng

r3alist said:


> this is the most hilarious spin ever, truly epic, what you have done is turned this situation into a positive for the us and alleviated and crime of spreading hate because apparently its up to the officers to be critical of the content. apparently there was only ONE (or a few at most) who objected, only a few!!
> 
> never mind that they cannot pass the exam if they dont regurgitate the material!!
> 
> 
> and another hilarious thing....truly hilarious and sad.......you referred to this course as "an alternative viewpoint" - thats right, JUST an alternative viewpoint, a mere exercise in gaming out a scenario - truly brilliant spin doctoring - talking about the destruction of mecca and medina as a alternative viewpoint!!



Both your feigned hilarity and your sadness are rooted in ignorance:

College level education here is very different, with no need to regurgitate any material, but rather on critically evaluating all subject matter presented. That is why nobody objected, because they all knew to evaluate it properly. Except of course one, and even his/her complaint will be investigated properly.

The possible destruction of Mecca and Medina is not that far-fetched an idea as you think: the Saudis themselves came close to destroying Masjid-al-Haram in 1979. Read up on it sometime. If such an event occurs nowadays with easier access to more powerful explosives, a small team of miscreants can easily do it.

It is merely prudent to be aware of all possible scenarios.

And I don't worry about the safety of the holy sites because I believe in the promise of Allah to protect them Himself. What are you worried about?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Wright

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Perhaps some of you might recall Muse's posts on the subject of the 'mindset of US Military Officers' he interacted with in Afghanistan and elsewhere - he pointed out that a significant majority of them harbored the very mindset that this course, IMO, was attempting to ingrain into the US Military - one of irrational hate and prejudice towards 'Muslims' in an attempt to dehumanize them.
> 
> Muse mentioned his interactions and observations of the US Military mindset to make the point that people advocating for any kind of 'strategic or substantive military/intelligence relationship' between the US and Pakistan were wrong, since the mindset on the US side was geared towards viewing Pakistan as the enemy regardless of how much cooperation Pakistan provided in the 'War on Terror'.



Most armies of Muslim nation's make their soldiers believe they are fighting a Jihad.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

VCheng said:


> College level education here is very different, with no need to regurgitate any material, but rather on critically evaluating all subject matter presented. That is why nobody objected, because they all knew to evaluate it properly. Except of course one, and even his/her complaint will be investigated properly.



But again, do es the US have (or had) a course studying 'nuking Latin America' given the uncountable resources and lives lost by the US in the 'war on drugs? If this particular course was merely just part of a US Academic tradition of 'critically evaluating all subject matter presented', then surely the far greater losses from the drug trade (compared to the WoT) would have warranted a similar 'study' about 'Hiroshima Tactics against Latin America'.



Wright said:


> Most armies of Muslim nation's make their soldiers believe they are fighting a Jihad.


 I cannot speak to other Muslim nations, but the Pakistani Army does not teach their officers courses about conducting a genocide of all Christian nations.

Jihad does not equate 'kill all non-Muslims', except in the minds of religious extremists and nutty right wing Westerners.


----------



## VCheng

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> But again, do es the US have (or had) a course studying 'nuking Latin America' given the uncountable resources and lives lost by the US in the 'war on drugs? If this particular course was merely just part of a US Academic tradition of 'critically evaluating all subject matter presented', then surely the far greater losses from the drug trade (compared to the WoT) would have warranted a similar 'study' about 'Hiroshima Tactics against Latin America'.



Yes, there are many, many courses on waging the drug war in Latin America too. The uses of nuclear weapons are part of discussions of different scenarios too.


----------



## King Solomon

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> But again, do es the US have (or had) a course studying 'nuking Latin America' given the uncountable resources and lives lost by the US in the 'war on drugs? If this particular course was merely just part of a US Academic tradition of 'critically evaluating all subject matter presented', then surely the far greater losses from the drug trade (compared to the WoT) would have warranted a similar 'study' about 'Hiroshima Tactics against Latin America'.



Well, it is much dependent on the way the media paints the picture. In case of muslims, the picture is that all Muslims are jihadist terrorists. In case of drug dealers, the image was not like that although contingency measures are studied. US military officers and normal citizens alike become brainwashed through that



> Perhaps some of you might recall Muse's posts on the subject of the 'mindset of US Military Officers' he interacted with in Afghanistan and elsewhere - he pointed out that a significant majority of them harbored the very mindset that this course, IMO, was attempting to ingrain into the US Military - one of irrational hate and prejudice towards 'Muslims' in an attempt to dehumanize them.
> 
> Muse mentioned his interactions and observations of the US Military mindset to make the point that people advocating for any kind of 'strategic or substantive military/intelligence relationship' between the US and Pakistan were wrong, since the mindset on the US side was geared towards viewing Pakistan as the enemy regardless of how much cooperation Pakistan provided in the 'War on Terror'.



The same can be said about the pakistan side of military. I can estimate!


----------



## VCheng

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> ......... the Pakistani Army does not teach their officers courses about conducting a genocide of all Christian nations..............



It is simply because of the fact that the Pakistan Army does not have the means to do so. If it did, it would. Guaranteed.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Wright said:


> That is what we are trying to figure out. How can Egyptian's, Bangladeshi's, Somalians, Jordanians, Pakistani's, Afghan's do that without ICBM or blue water navy?


So, are you suggesting the Iran's alleged quest for nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them to targets in Europe and North America is justified?



VCheng said:


> Yes, there are many, many courses on waging the drug war in Latin America too.


Course on waging a war in any conflict zone is not an issue - courses studying 'nuking entire nations' certainly is.



> The uses of nuclear weapons are part of discussions of different scenarios too.


Could you provide links to courses studying 'nuking Latin America' as a potential tactic in the war on drugs?



VCheng said:


> It is simply because of the fact that the Pakistan Army does not have the means to do so. If it did, it would. Guaranteed.


That would be utter speculation on your part, something you yourself would adamantly claim you did not want to do during discussions of the Raymond Davis case.

And while the Pakistan Army may not have the means to reach the US with nuclear weapons, it certainly has the ability to target a number of other 'non-Muslim nations' in the region, yet there has been no report of any such 'course' being taught by the Pakistani military.


----------



## pakdefender

S-19 said:


> US produces about 10 billion barrels/day, position just after Russia and KSA. However, consumes about 19 billion barrels/day.
> 
> Even if ALL of its oil imports are stopped, which is very *unlikely even if Hormuz is blocked*, 10 billion/day is enough for its military.
> 
> 
> 
> As I said it depends on the fissile material being used. Chernobyls main problem was the Radon gas which leaked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only about 20% of oil imports would be blocked if Hormuz is blocked.



A loss of 20% oil supply is huge, unless the other producers agree to produce more and sell more at lesser cost to meet the shortfall in demand, this will cause very high oil prices perhaps even unsustainable over a long period


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

S-19 said:


> Well, it is much dependent on the way the media paints the picture. In case of muslims, the picture is that all Muslims are jihadist terrorists. In case of drug dealers, the image was not like that although contingency measures are studied. *US military officers and normal citizens alike become brainwashed through that*


The highlighted part is the point being made - that the US military has been 'brainwashed' into dehumanizing the Muslim world - weren't the Nazis similarly 'brainwashed' into justifying genocide in their minds? Do you not see a problem with this mindset, regardless of the cause?


> The same can be said about the pakistan side of military. I can estimate!


The Pakistani military is not deployed in the US's backyard. Pakistan has faced severe consequences (economic, security, social) as a result of the hasty and poor US decision to rush into war in Afghanistan, and subsequently Iraq.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> .....................
> 
> Could you provide links to courses studying 'nuking Latin America' as a potential tactic in the war on drugs?
> 
> 
> That would be utter speculation on your part, something you yourself would adamantly claim you did not want to do during discussions of the Raymond Davis case.
> 
> And while the Pakistan Army may not have the means to reach the US with nuclear weapons, it certainly has the ability to target a number of other 'non-Muslim nations' in the region, yet there has been no report of any such 'course' being taught by the Pakistani military.



The use of tactical nuclear weapons as defoliants is a part of _discussions_, certainly, which is what I said. A full course is not needed yet because it is still a limited war.

And I am not speculating anything. ALL global powers with ICBMs conduct such annihilatory exercises. ALL of them. And Pakistan would be no exception if and when it is in that position.


----------



## King Solomon

pakdefender said:


> A loss of 20% oil supply is huge, unless the other producers agress to produce more and sell more at lesser cost to meet the shortfall in demand , this will cause very high oil prices perhaps even unstanable over a long period



In wartime, energy industry would be temporarily nationalized by US. The rise in oil prices would, thus, have little or no effect on US war machine. 

Same goes for Russia.



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> The highlighted part is the point being made - that the US military has been 'brainwashed' into dehumanizing the Muslim world - weren't the Nazis similarly 'brainwashed' into justifying genocide in their minds? Do you not see a problem with this mindset, regardless of the cause?


 
Of course, I am not trying to justify his genocidal tendencies in any way. This was definitely not a "contengincy" exercise as some people are thinking because the paper proves otherwise,



> The Pakistani military is not deployed in the US's backyard. Pakistan has faced severe consequences (economic, security, social) as a result of the hasty and poor US decision to rush into war in Afghanistan, and subsequently Iraq.



I meant, in the context of the mindset of officers. I can estimate that 90%+ officers and soldiers of pakistan's army views US/NATO as "infidel Kafir" nation and an eternal enemy of pakistan nation and all Muslims... Isn't that true?

The only difference is pakistan does not have the means to deliver nuclear weapons to US. Otherwise i'm sure many pakistan officers would be teaching how to wipe out the "infidel Satan" off the map

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

VCheng said:


> The use of tactical nuclear weapons as defoliants is a part of discussions, certainly, which is what I said. A full course is not needed yet because it is still a limited war.


Outside of Afghanistan, the WoT could also be argued to be a 'limited war', so why the need for a course on nuking Muslims countries, rather than just nuking Afghanistan?


> And I am not speculating anything. ALL global powers with ICBMs conduct such annihilatory exercises. ALL of them. And Pakistan would be no exception if and when it is in that position.


Academic exercises to study the impact of nuclear war in case of a conflict are completely legitimate - Pakistan has likely done the same with respect to India and possibly Israel. But the studies are driven from the reality of being in conflict with the governments of the two nations and the possibility of those nations militarily attacking Pakistan. 

Those studies have not been conducted as an exercise in 'nuking the Hindu/Jewish world because of the religious identities of the people of those nations' but as an exercise in responding to the State attacking Pakistan.

The distinction here is between conducting studies on carrying out nuclear strikes against a State/States when/if the State poses a military threat to the nation, instead of studies on conducting nuclear strikes on States merely because of the religious identities of the residents of those States.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## anonymus

S-19 said:


> That is a big misconception. Very big one at that. Do you have any idea of the amount of fossil fuel reserves of Russia and USA? It is* far more* than what Saudi Arabia or the middle east has. Russia is a major energy exporter. USA can be too if it wishes however, it prefers to meddle in ME.



I have been thinking of writing a same post since i read a chapter of Energy resources in my geography class few weeks ago.

People in general go on and on regarding Oil being a weapon they can use.They are completely ignorant of few facts...

1.Most of the major consumers of Oil whether it is USA,Russia,China,India,Brazil or EU themselves have reserves which they can use for almost a decades in case of China and India and Couple of Decades in case of USA , Russia and Brazil even if middle east stops pumping oil.

2.Only 20% of Oil Imports of USA comes from middle east and 18% of it from saudi arabia...




3.Reserves of unconventional oil (Shale Oil) are 411 gigatons many more times than of conventional crude.

4.Estimated reserves of Crude in Alaska is more than that of Saudi Arabia.

5.Most of the countries keep their Oil in ground to use it in case of Political turmoil.

6.While Oil is only one of the Input in an industrialised economy,most of middle east country are barren of resources other than Oil.Selling Oil is more of an compulsion rather than choice.This is one of the factor that makes middle east crude cheaper than other places as most of the OPEC countries have to pump Oil to meet their budgetary expenses.

7.US is Saudi arabia of world in Anthracite and Bitumen coal.This allows it flexibility to switch to thermal power.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## pakdefender

S-19 said:


> In wartime, energy industry would be temporarily nationalized by US. The rise in oil prices would, thus, have little or no effect on US war machine.



So in order to defeat Muslims the US will become a communist country.

Once upen a time there was a communist state before the US tried and failed at their attempt at making war on Muslims in the same way, that communist state ended up breaking into many pieces.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

S-19 said:


> Of course, I am not trying to justify his genocidal tendencies in any way. This was definitely not a "contengincy" exercise as some people are thinking because the paper proves otherwise,





> I meant, in the context of the mindset of officers. I can estimate that 90%+ officers and soldiers of pakistan's army views US/NATO as "infidel Kafir" nation and an eternal enemy of pakistan nation and all Muslims... Isn't that true?


Currently that is probable, but for good reason - the US has after all, as I mentioned, been the cause of a great degree of damage to Pakistan, both directly and indirectly, and its military is parked across from Pakistan's borders thousands of miles away from home.

The Pakistani State and its institutions, ignoring the paranoid conspiracy nuts claiming the ISI hid OBL, has done nothing to directly harm the US. Pakistan had a strong alliance with the US during the Cold War, and it was the US that broke off that relationship after the Cold War had ended through a very public imposition of sanctions on Pakistan over its nuclear program.


> The only difference is pakistan does not have the means to deliver nuclear weapons to US. Otherwise i'm sure many pakistan officers would be teaching how to wipe out the "infidel Satan" off the map


In the current geo-political climate, if Pakistan had the ability to attack the US with nuclear weapons, it would certainly be doing so, not because the US was an 'infidel Satan', but because the US is currently acting like a hostile entity towards Pakistan. Again, the distinction here being one of animosity towards a State because of the actions of that State, and animosity towards an entire peoples because of the religion/race of those peoples.

The US military mindset, as this course suggests and as Muse reported, was not one of simple animosity towards Pakistan because of perceived halfhearted cooperation in the WoT, but because of a general dehumanizing of the Muslim world.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## King Solomon

pakdefender said:


> So in order to defeat Muslims the US will become a communist country.
> 
> Once upen a time there was a communist state before the US tried and failed at their attempt at making war on Muslims in the same way, that communist state ended up breaking into many pieces.



As for your analogy, we got rid of the laggards. Russia today is more powerful and prosperous than USSR at the time the states got independence.

You are desperately diverting the topic when you know you have lost the argument. The fact still stands: US/Russia can nuke Mecca/Medina if it comes down to that and Muslims are powerless against it.


----------



## anonymus

pakdefender said:


> So in order to defeat Muslims the US will become a communist country.
> 
> Once upen a time there was a communist state before the US tried and failed at their attempt at making war on Muslims in the same way, that communist state ended up breaking into many pieces.



No they would have to simply drill for Oil in Alaska which is out of bound due to environmental reasons today or start exploiting shale oil which would become economical in $120/barrel Crude.

Err......I have answered your question in context of S 19 post...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## King Solomon

anonymus said:


> No they would have to simply drill for Oil in Alaska which is out of bound due to environmental reasons today or start exploiting shale oil which would become economical in $120/barrel Crude.
> 
> Err......I have answered your question in context of S 19 post...



It is due to ignorance of these people like pakdefender. According to an analysis I have read recently, if US and Russia starts drilling their energy and using all on their own, the international price for crude oil would lower to not more than 5 dollars. After shale gas tech the gas price already lowered from $12 to $2 and full scale drilling hasn't started yet.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## pakdefender

anonymus said:


> I have been thinking of writing a same post since i read a chapter of Energy resources in my geography class few weeks ago.
> 
> People in general go on and on regarding Oil being a weapon they can use.They are completely ignorant of few facts...
> 
> 1.Most of the major consumers of Oil whether it is USA,Russia,China,India,Brazil or EU themselves have reserves which they can use for almost a decades in case of China and India and Couple of Decades in case of USA , Russia and Brazil even if middle east stops pumping oil.
> 
> 2.Only 20% of Oil Imports of USA comes from middle east and 18% of it from saudi arabia...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.Reserves of unconventional oil (Shale Oil) are 411 gigatons many more times than of conventional crude.
> 
> 4.Estimated reserves of Crude in Alaska is more than that of Saudi Arabia.
> 
> 5.Most of the countries keep their Oil in ground to be immune from Political turmoil.
> 
> 6.While Oil is only one of the Input in an industrialised economy,most of middle east country are barren of resources other than Oil.Selling Oil is more of an compulsion rather than choice.This is one of the factor that makes middle east crude cheaper than other places as most of the OPEC countries have to pump Oil to meet their budgetary expenses.
> 
> 7.US is Saudi arabia of world in Anthracite and Bitumen coal.This allows it flexibility to switch to thermal power.




If the oil issue is all that simple then why aren&#8217;t the Americans stopping the purchase of oil from Muslim states and instead go to war with them?


----------



## anonymus

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Outside of Afghanistan, the WoT could also be argued to be a 'limited war', so why the need for a course on nuking Muslims countries, rather than just nuking Afghanistan?
> 
> Academic exercises to study the impact of nuclear war in case of a conflict are completely legitimate - Pakistan has likely done the same with respect to India and possibly Israel. But the studies are driven from the reality of being in conflict with the governments of the two nations and the possibility of those nations militarily attacking Pakistan.
> 
> Those studies have not been conducted as an exercise in 'nuking the Hindu/Jewish world because of the religious identities of the people of those nations' but as an exercise in responding to the State attacking Pakistan.
> 
> The distinction here is between conducting studies on carrying out nuclear strikes against a State/States when/if the State poses a military threat to the nation, instead of studies on conducting nuclear strikes on States merely because of the religious identities of the residents of those States.



You probably are overreacting...........

Most of the countries have military plans even for unseen and improbable and sometime balls out probabilities.

Us had a war plan Red for invading Canada........

Even Canada had a military plan of invading US known as Defence Scheme one.

5 Unfought Wars That Would Have Changed Everything | Cracked.com

Few days ago a naval offices in India blurted out that amphibious landing in Hongkong would be difficult to support only with two aircraft carriers in long run.....

Countries make plan for hypothetical scenarios all the time...........

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## King Solomon

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Currently that is probable, but for good reason - the US has after all, as I mentioned, been the cause of a great degree of damage to Pakistan, both directly and indirectly, and its military is parked across from Pakistan's borders thousands of miles away from home.
> 
> The Pakistani State and its institutions, ignoring the paranoid conspiracy nuts claiming the ISI hid OBL, has done nothing to directly harm the US. Pakistan had a strong alliance with the US during the Cold War, and it was the US that broke off that relationship after the Cold War had ended through a very public imposition of sanctions on Pakistan over its nuclear program.
> 
> In the current geo-political climate, if Pakistan had the ability to attack the US with nuclear weapons, it would certainly be doing so, not because the US was an 'infidel Satan', but because the US is currently acting like a hostile entity towards Pakistan. Again, the distinction here being one of animosity towards a State because of the actions of that State, and animosity towards an entire peoples because of the religion/race of those peoples.
> 
> The US military mindset, as this course suggests and as Muse reported, was not one of simple animosity towards Pakistan because of perceived halfhearted cooperation in the WoT, but because of a general dehumanizing of the Muslim world.



It is much like the Muslim-Jew hatred. Most muslims hate jews because they have been indoctrinated to do so by various religious clerics. Even if Israel had offered numerous peace plans in the past, this animosity towards Jews meant that they were not accepted. You may argue about the settlements and other factors, but the hatred is still there and cannot be denied. Perhaps the same would apply to most Jews towards muslims. 

So, as the Jews now share a good relationship with USA, muslims consider USA as a great adversary as well. So, I do not think most of pakistan soldiers would hate US just because of its perceived unfair treatment of pakistan, but because of this hatred which actually stems from the hatred of Jews, translated to hatred for Jew's supporters which is USA. Add to that the conspiracy theories of Israeli lobby, US, Zionist conspiracy etc being propagated everywhere. A simple search on google insights and youtube stats would prove that muslims and pakistan people are the fondest of these conspiracy theories.

Similarly, in case of US, since 9/11, Muslims were projected as an eternal enemy of the western civilization who wants to destroy the west by suicide bombing and terror attacks etc. Whether that is possible or not is a different issue but that is the image which media created. Now US military officers and everyone became affected by these psy-ops and their hatred is because of the hidden animosity towards Muslims created by the media, rather than the perceived heedlessness of pakistan towards war on terror.


----------



## pakdefender

Wright said:


> That is what we are trying to figure out. How can Egyptian's, Bangladeshi's, Somalians, Jordanians, Pakistani's, Afghan's do that without ICBM or blue water navy?
> 
> I am having a hard time understanding this assertion.



How do you know we dont have ICBMs , we might be having them but just not declared

US presence is near by in Afghansitan which can be targeted and US presence is in all Gulf states which will be targetted. If we move our misslies to Saudi Arabia then we'll be able engage even more targets from there.


----------



## anonymus

pakdefender said:


> If the oil issue is all that simple then why aren&#8217;t the Americans stopping the purchase of oil from Muslim states and instead go to war with them?



Why do you think that oil is the only reason that US is at war with muslims?? 

A lot of non muslim countries are much more resourceful than muslim countries.....

I forgot to add that Venezuela has maximum proven oil reserves in world........

List of countries by proven oil reserves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And you are again overstating the importance of Oil...........

Muslim countries do not have anything to sell except Oil in most cases and are in Desert areas where they cannot even grow their own food.

Oil is not a resource which is not inaccessible with money.

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

And don't blame your incompetencies on US........

Even today if there is genocide in Middle east people run to US to get it stopped .......

Who gave a chance to US to invade Iraq in 1991??

Was it not Saddam????Didn't he waged a bankrupting war with Iran and invaded kuwait which lead to whole bunch of GCC countries to plead on the doors of US to save them???

How differently should USA have behaved after 9/11 ?

Didn't the bunch of Arab countries from Qatar to Saudi goaded an unwilling US to topple gaddafi?Heck they even contributed their aircrafts for the campaign........


A question.......

Why don't US invade the muslim country of malaysia for palm oil??????

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## King Solomon

pakdefender said:


> How do you know we dont have ICBMs , we might be having them but just not declared
> 
> US presence is near by in Afghansitan which can be targeted and US presence is in all Gulf states which will be targetted. If we move our misslies to Saudi Arabia then we'll be able engage even more targets from there.



Before thinking offensive, better plan how you'd defend yourself. US can vaporize pakistan within a couple of minutes if it wishes. All it would take is a presidential command and press of a few buttons. Better come out of fantasy land.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> ..............
> In the current geo-political climate, if Pakistan had the ability to attack the US with nuclear weapons, it would certainly be doing so, not because the US was an 'infidel Satan', but because the US is currently acting like a hostile entity towards Pakistan. ................



Absolutely incorrect. If Pakistan had the ability to attack the US with nuclear weapons, it would certainly be doing so, _precisely _because a majority of its people (and increasingly its military too) view the US was an 'infidel Satan'. (Witness your own words in many threads, and many of the posts that you have thanked.)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## pakdefender

S-19 said:


> Before thinking offensive, better plan how you'd defend yourself. US can vaporize pakistan within a couple of minutes if it wishes. All it would take is a presidential command and press of a few buttons. Better come out of fantasy land.



We will attack the enemy where ever we can find them , we know that the enemy will have more weapons at its disposal so we'll go all out on offense to defend our selves and that would mean attacking anything that is with in reach. 

IF we are talking doomsday scenario then its people like you who need to come out of this fantasy that if you do Hiroshima on our Holy sites we'll not be able to do anything in retaliation.


----------



## King Solomon

pakdefender said:


> We will attack the enemy where ever we can find them , we know that the enemy will have more weapons at its disposal so we'll go all out on offense to defend our selves and that would mean attacking anything that is with in reach.
> 
> IF we are talking doomsday scenario then its people like you who need to come out of this fantasy that if you do Hiroshima on our Holy sites we'll not be able to do anything in retaliation.



Everybody knows who is the one living in fantasy land. The moment Israel or US Navy launches multimegaton nuclear missiles at Mecca/Medina, violent protests would start in all pro-western muslim governments to take them down like in KSA/pakistan. More muslims would be killed in the local civil wars in muslim countries that will erupt rather than by the nukes that would land in the holy sites. The destruction of the holy sites is indeed considered a vulnerable point of Muslims by the western military strategists and such a scenario has already been practiced I'm sure. Western countries including Isreal will be safe because any insurgency would be bogged down.

And I already showed you how US and Russia would be least affected by any Arab oil embargo.

Russia and China does not care about Mecca/Medina so would remain silent. US/Israel can get away with just some "international condemnation" if they do ever decide to nuke Mecca/Medina.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## anonymus

pakdefender said:


> How do you know we dont have ICBMs , we might be having them but just not declared



ICBM's are not some 50Rs toy that could be made on demand.You need to test a missile even to know that it would work....

All your missiles till now have been brought off the shelf from China and N Korea.(Musharraff admitted to that,don't bring out conspiracy theories regarding him being a traitor) thus you may not be able to appreciate the importance of testing of proof of concept.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/30781.pdf
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/DJ22Df01.html
http://www.missilethreat.com/archives/id.40,page.3/subject_detail.asp
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers5/paper464.html
http://www.fact.com.pk/archives/april/feng/spy.htm



pakdefender said:


> US presence is near by in Afghansitan which can be targeted and US presence is in all Gulf states which will be targetted.



Bases are also defended by missile defence shield and pakistan does not have a missile which could get through it.



pakdefender said:


> If we move our misslies to Saudi Arabia then we'll be able engage even more targets from there.



Assuming Saudi's are stupid enough to give you access.....How would you transport your missile to Saudi??????????????

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## pakdefender

S-19 said:


> Everybody knows who is the one living in fantasy land. The moment Israel or US Navy launches multimegaton nuclear missiles at Mecca/Medina, violent protests would start in all pro-western muslim governments to take them down like in KSA/pakistan. More muslims would be killed in the local civil wars in muslim countries that will erupt rather than by the nukes that would land in the holy sites. The destruction of the holy sites is indeed considered a vulnerable point of Muslims by the western military strategists and such a scenario has already been practiced I'm sure. Western countries including Isreal will be safe because any insurgency would be bogged down.
> 
> And I already showed you how US and Russia would be least affected by any Arab oil embargo.
> 
> Russia and China does not care about Mecca/Medina so would remain silent. US/Israel can get away with just some "international condemnation" if they do ever decide to nuke Mecca/Medina.



if it was that easy for the americans to destroy Islam , they would have done so by now 

Americans burned The Holy Quran on an afghan base but after getting shot in their *** a few times , they went into hiding and begged for an apology but if they do an attack on Makkah and Madina , they will be shot millions of times and no apology or pacification will work, you can be rest assured of this. 

I know for sure that in the aftermath of such an event , in Pakistan and Afghansitan , no american will be spared come what may


----------



## Wright

pakdefender said:


> if it was that easy for the americans to destroy Islam , they would have done so by now
> 
> Americans burned The Holy Quran on an afghan base but after getting shot in their *** a few times , they went into hiding and begged for an apology but if they do an attack on Makkah and Madina , they will be shot millions of times and no apology or pacification will work, you can be rest assured of this.
> 
> I know for sure that in the aftermath of such an event , in Pakistan and Afghansitan , no american will be spared come what may



Dude you need to let it go. The reality is your greatest enemy. You conveniently overlook the fact ONE nation is powerful enough to fight TWO wars simultaneously on the other side of the world in landlocked countries. All the while running Air sorties in Libya, and drone missions in Pakistan, yemen, somalia. 

How many countries can do that? 

Your country cant sustain a war longer than a week.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

VCheng said:


> Absolutely incorrect. If Pakistan had the ability to attack the US with nuclear weapons, it would certainly be doing so, _precisely _because a majority of its people (and increasingly its military too) view the US was an 'infidel Satan'. (Witness your own words in many threads, and many of the posts that you have thanked.)


Absolutely incorrect - if Pakistan had the ability to target the US with nuclear weapons, the US-Pak relationship would not be at the levels it is at currently, since the US would not have taken as many illegal and hostile actions against Pakistan, and anti-US sentiment in Pakistan would subsequently have been lower.

The anti-Americanism in Pakistan (leaving out the religious extremists) derives predominantly from the hostile anti-Pakistan policies the US Establishment has followed over the last few decades.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## pakdefender

Wright said:


> Dude you need to let it go. The reality is your greatest enemy. You conveniently overlook the fact ONE nation is powerful enough to fight TWO wars simultaneously on the other side of the world in landlocked countries. All the while running Air sorties in Libya, and drone missions in Pakistan, yemen, somalia.
> 
> How many countries can do that?
> 
> Your country cant sustain a war longer than a week.



So our country cant sustain a war longer than week, yet you blame us for giving you sleepless night in afghanistan for over 10 years 

If americans want to fight against Islam , they can bring it , we will given them 1000 years of sleep less night .. Insha Allah


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

anonymus said:


> Countries make plan for hypothetical scenarios all the time...........


Yes, against other States and specific targets that could potentially pose a threat to the State, and not against an entire 'peoples based on their religion/race'.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Thomas

Aryan_B said:


> Do not worry we got enough for India and Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but lets face it HQ is in Tel Aviv. TA through Aipac has subverted American democracy and now controls America. So we in Pakistan could flatten TA. There you go.
> 
> Also the effect of 100 odd nukes going off on this planet there is a good chance it will destroy the earth as we know it. So American will be a pyrrhic victory if that



what the guy taught is reprehensible and will be dealt with. that aside 100 nukes would not destroy the world. the US alone has detonated over 1000 nukes since 1945. The Soviets detonated even more untill the both sides signed the test ban treaty. Hundreds of those tests were above ground.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## King Solomon

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Absolutely incorrect - if Pakistan had the ability to target the US with nuclear weapons, the US-Pak relationship would not be at the levels it is at currently, since the US would not have taken as many illegal and hostile actions against Pakistan, and anti-US sentiment in Pakistan would subsequently have been lower.
> 
> The anti-Americanism in Pakistan (leaving out the religious extremists) derives predominantly from the hostile anti-Pakistan policies the US Establishment has followed over the last few decades.


 
That is not correct. Take for example saudi arabian. US has not done any hostile action towards SA so far or has not treated it the way like pakistan. Yet, statistics show that a large % of people hate the United States.What do you have to say about that?

As I said here, the hatred from pakistan side stems from animosity towards Zionists. US' hostile actions have increased the hatred but is not the source of it.



S-19 said:


> It is much like the Muslim-Jew hatred. Most muslims hate jews because they have been indoctrinated to do so by various religious clerics. Even if Israel had offered numerous peace plans in the past, this animosity towards Jews meant that they were not accepted. You may argue about the settlements and other factors, but the hatred is still there and cannot be denied. Perhaps the same would apply to most Jews towards muslims.
> 
> So, as the Jews now share a good relationship with USA, muslims consider USA as a great adversary as well. So, I do not think most of pakistan soldiers would hate US just because of its perceived unfair treatment of pakistan, but because of this hatred which actually stems from the hatred of Jews, translated to hatred for Jew's supporters which is USA. Add to that the conspiracy theories of Israeli lobby, US, Zionist conspiracy etc being propagated everywhere. A simple search on google insights and youtube stats would prove that muslims and pakistan people are the fondest of these conspiracy theories.
> 
> Similarly, in case of US, since 9/11, Muslims were projected as an eternal enemy of the western civilization who wants to destroy the west by suicide bombing and terror attacks etc. Whether that is possible or not is a different issue but that is the image which media created. Now US military officers and everyone became affected by these psy-ops and their hatred is because of the hidden animosity towards Muslims created by the media, rather than the perceived heedlessness of pakistan towards war on terror.





Thomas said:


> what the guy taught is reprehensible and will be dealt with. that aside 100 nukes would not destroy the world. the US alone has detonated over 1000 nukes since 1945. The Soviets detonated even more untill the both sides signed the test ban treaty. Hundreds of those tests were above ground.



Those puny 50 kT nukes aren't even enough to destroy each other let alone the world. Especially India would still have significant economic and military capability after being nuked by the other.



pakdefender said:


> if it was that easy for the americans to destroy Islam , they would have done so by now
> 
> Americans burned The Holy Quran on an afghan base but after getting shot in their *** a few times , they went into hiding and begged for an apology but if they do an attack on Makkah and Madina , they will be shot millions of times and no apology or pacification will work, you can be rest assured of this.
> 
> I know for sure that in the aftermath of such an event , in Pakistan and Afghansitan , no american will be spared come what may


 
I can understand you emotions, but the reality is that muslims are completely at the mercy of US/russia and all major powers. Cussing won't change the reality. You won't be able to do anything if they decide to nuke Mecca/Medina. Your only option would be to rebuild them.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## VCheng

Instead of talking about hypotheticals, I want to point out specifically the conclusions of Dooley's course:



> "Given *the factual basis of what "Islamists" say they seek to impose on the world*, the United States has come to accept that radical "true Islam" is both a political and military enemy to free people throughout the world.... It is therefore time for the United States to make our true intentions clear. This barbaric ideology will no longer be tolerated. *Islam must change or we will facilitate its self destruction*."



Without going ballistic by the needless rhetoric, please try to see the three important questions:

1. What is the factual basis of what "Islamists" say they seek to impose on the world?

2. Does present-day Islam as is being practiced need to change, and if so, how?

3. If it does not change, how can forces in opposition seek its self-destruction?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Absolutely incorrect - if Pakistan had the ability to target the US with nuclear weapons, the US-Pak relationship would not be at the levels it is at currently, since the US would not have taken as many illegal and hostile actions against Pakistan, and *anti-US sentiment in Pakistan would subsequently have been lower.*
> 
> The anti-Americanism in Pakistan (leaving out the religious extremists) derives predominantly from the hostile anti-Pakistan policies the US Establishment has followed over the last few decades.


Speculative at best. We can also argue that from the fact that Osama bin Laden hid among Pakistanis for so long, even living so close to a major Pakistani military establishment, perhaps this hypothetical nuclear powerful Pakistan would be 'The One' muslim power to lead an Islamic revival, a revival that is led a nuclear sword?



pakdefender said:


> So our country cant sustain a war longer than week, yet you blame us for giving you sleepless night in afghanistan for over 10 years


That is because Afghanistan is fortunate that we do not want to destroy Afghanistan but to preserve it and turn it into something else it was not. Whether we succeed or not is not the issue, but by that intention and goal, we exercised military restraints in Afghanistan and Pakistan.



pakdefender said:


> If americans want to fight against Islam , they can bring it , we will given them 1000 years of sleep less night .. Insha Allah


No...Allah will not be so willing.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lem34

S-19 said:


> That is not correct. Take for example saudi arabian. US has not done any hostile action towards SA so far or has not treated it the way like pakistan. Yet, statistics show that a large % of people hate the United States.What do you have to say about that?



America has done nothing hostile to KSA because the Saudi leadership and country is in their pocket exactly how they want them



S-19 said:


> As I said here, the hatred from pakistan side stems from animosity towards Zionists. US' hostile actions have increased the hatred but is not the source of it.



Nope on my part I dislike America because their action around the world are unjust

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Yes, against other States and specific targets that could potentially pose a threat to the State, and not against an entire 'peoples *based on their religion*/race'.


Why not? The Crusades were composed of disparate nationalities of Christendom. Al-Qaeda's membership roll, convenient or not, composed of disparate nationalities of the Islamic world. So why is it improbable/impossible than a Cold War style tension can exist between the two?


----------



## lem34

S-19 said:


> Those puny 50 kT nukes aren't even enough to destroy each other let alone the world. Especially India would still have significant economic and military capability after being nuked by the other.
> 
> 
> 
> .



You can speculate they would not cause any damage. I can speculate the opposite. But I think neither of us would want to find out.


----------



## gambit

VCheng said:


> Instead of talking about hypotheticals, I want to point out specifically the conclusions of Dooley's course:
> 
> 
> 
> Without going ballistic by the needless rhetoric, please try to see the three important questions:
> 
> 1. What is the factual basis of what "Islamists" say they seek to impose on the world?
> 
> 2. Does present-day Islam as is being practiced need to change, and if so, how?
> 
> 3. If it does not change, how can forces in opposition seek its self-destruction?


Excellent questions. I look forward to seeing their evasions.



pakdefender said:


> if it was that easy for the americans to destroy Islam , they would have done so by now
> 
> Americans burned The Holy Quran on an afghan base but after getting shot in their *** a few times , they went into hiding and *begged for an apology* but if they do an attack on Makkah and Madina , they will be shot millions of times and no apology or pacification will work, you can be rest assured of this.
> 
> I know for sure that in the aftermath of such an event , in Pakistan and Afghansitan , no american will be spared come what may


You are lucky that political correctness is one such restraint of many restraints, military and philosophical, that we put upon ourselves. Else...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lem34

In any event we are all starting to go somewhat off topic. 

There can be no excuse for having this kind of course at any type o educational establishment. If Pakistani military schools taught destruction of America or all Jews they would be accused of being taken over and or infiltrated by terrorists. In fact there was some complaints from Americans that courses were being run by PA for officers that were simply anti American and did not even compare to this outrage by Americans



gambit said:


> Excellent questions. I look forward to seeing their evasions.
> 
> 
> You are lucky that political correctness is one such restraint of many restraints, military and philosophical, that we put upon ourselves. Else...



No its not its an attempt to go of topic and blame the would be recipient victims


----------



## anonymus

Aryan_B said:


> Nope on my part I dislike America because their action around the world are unjust



Even with its fault USA is probably the most benign and just superpower world has seen..............

Last one including British and Romans before them were much more unjust.......


----------



## lem34

I find it interesting that the only two "Americans" trying to defend this course run by American is a Vietnamese and Pakistani American.

Are you guys trying to prove your loyalties to America by being more Americans than Americans to justify your loyalties. Cos methinks the lady doth complaineth too much


----------



## gambit

Aryan_B said:


> In any event we are all starting to go somewhat off topic.


No, we are not. These questions/issues are foundational to the main topic.



Aryan_B said:


> There can be no excuse for having this kind of course at any type o educational establishment. If Pakistani military schools taught destruction of America or all Jews they would be accused of being taken over and or infiltrated by terrorists. In fact there was some complaints from Americans that courses were being run by PA for officers that were simply anti American and did not even compare to this outrage by Americans


Do you really care that if military schools are involved? But tell US, how many muslims are outraged that madrassas are being used to indoctrinate young muslim minds to hate US and Jews?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lem34

anonymus said:


> Even with its fault USA is probably the most benign and just superpower world has seen..............
> 
> Last one including British and Romans before them were much more unjust.......



Oh come of it sycophantic Indian (and I know there are many of you out there) Can you imagine if the course was about eliminating Hindus of this earth?

Don't even try justifying what is unjustifiable


----------



## gambit

Aryan_B said:


> *I find it interesting that the only two "Americans" trying to defend this course run by American is a Vietnamese and Pakistani American.*
> 
> Are you guys trying to prove your loyalties to America by being more Americans than Americans to justify your loyalties. Cos methinks the lady doth complaineth too much


That is because you have a difficult time with your small mind to see how ideologies can unite different peoples behind the US flag. But oddly enough, you will 'Praise be to Allah' all day long if a convert does the same for Islam. May be I should go 'Praise be to Jesus'?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lem34

gambit said:


> But tell US, how many muslims are outraged that madrassas are being used to indoctrinate young muslim minds to hate US and Jews?



Well I think that is wrong but bear in mind these were with American approval funded by Saudis. It is American and Sauds fault for not assisting Pakistan to close these. Oh and do not forget these schools you are referring to are not state sponsored

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## pk_baloch

http://http://ummat.com.pk/story/2012/05/13/5732/


----------



## lem34

gambit said:


> That is because you have a difficult time with your small mind to see how ideologies can unite different peoples behind the US flag. But oddly enough, you will 'Praise be to Allah' all day long if a convert does the same for Islam. May be I should go 'Praise be to Jesus'?



Oh yea it seems logical what you are doing after what Americans did to Vietnam. I think you and Cheng are victims of Stockholm Syndrome. Your support of American policies leading to significant killing of your own people does not seem rational to me


----------



## Developereo

Thomas said:


> what the guy taught is reprehensible and will be dealt with.



Thank you, Thomas.

As usual, the actual American military guy understands why this course was a bad idea, unlike the armchair warrior apologists rationalizing the course and diverting into all sort of irrelevant topics.

The issue here is *NOT* whether the US/Israel/Martians can nuke this, that or the other. The issue is *NOT* the economics of global oil trade, and it is *NOT* about Pakistan.

The issue here is the mindset that views collective punishment (of Muslims) as a viable option in a 'Total War on Islam'. The issue here is the US military considering the viability of abandoning the Geneva Conventions and deliberately targeting Muslim civilian centers in response to terrorist activity. The issue here is what message does it send to rank and file soldiers when they see their superiors view the conflict as a 'Total War on Islam'.

Once again, to repeat the analogy, it is *UNTHINKABLE* that the US military would even consider nuking random African cities in response to Somalian piracy. Or nuking Bogota or Sao Paolo as part of the drug war, regardless of what the drug lords did.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## anonymus

Aryan_B said:


> Oh come of it sycophantic Indian (and I know there are many of you out there) Can you imagine if the course was about eliminating Hindus of this earth?
> 
> Don't even try justifying what is unjustifiable



I won't even care.....

Your countrymen rant about it on TV everyday which i have came to know only after joining this forum...........

And isn't ideology of Pakistani army since days of Zia based on Jihad.....

anyway i should add that getting upset over such a thing is one's right.Just don't go overboard doing it.


----------



## gambit

Aryan_B said:


> Oh come of it sycophantic Indian (and I know there are many of you out there) Can you imagine if the course was about *eliminating Hindus of this earth?*
> 
> Don't even try justifying what is unjustifiable


We do not see throngs of Hindus chanting 'Death to America'.



Aryan_B said:


> Oh yea it seems logical what you are doing after *what Americans did to Vietnam.* I think you and Cheng are victims of Stockholm Syndrome. Your support of American policies leading to significant killing of your own people does not seem rational to me


Whenever I see that, I know the person has no arguments left.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## anonymus

Aryan_B said:


> Oh yea it seems logical what you are doing after what Americans did to Vietnam. I think you and Cheng are victims of Stockholm Syndrome. Your support of American policies leading to significant killing of your own people does not seem rational to me



Read history.There was south vietnam also......................


----------



## VCheng

VCheng said:


> ...................
> Without going ballistic by the needless rhetoric, please try to see the three important questions:
> 
> 1. What is the factual basis of what "Islamists" say they seek to impose on the world?
> 
> 2. Does present-day Islam as is being practiced need to change, and if so, how?
> 
> 3. If it does not change, how can forces in opposition seek its self-destruction?



I see that everyone is avoiding the questions posed by Dooley's course. What if his questions come up with really uncomfortable answers?


----------



## gambit

anonymus said:


> There was south vietnam also


Do not mind him. Such historical inconveniences...



VCheng said:


> I see that everyone is avoiding the questions posed by Dooley's course. What if his questions come up with really uncomfortable answers?


You mean dancing around the questions like this...


----------



## Developereo

VCheng said:


> I see that everyone is avoiding the questions posed by Dooley's course. What if his questions come up with really uncomfortable answers?



Nobody's avoiding the questions because the premise is flawed. If you would give your petty grandstanding a rest and indulge in basic logic, you would see that he presupposes the exact premise which we are debating.

He starts talking about 'radical Islam' and silently switches to 'Islam must reform'. In case your logic circuits are overtaxed, he is equating 'radical Islam' with 'mainstream Islam' and suggesting that mainstream Islam condones terrorism.

He is openly advocating a total war on Islam -- all 1.4 billion Muslims. This is in direct contradiction to the statements of the US administration and senior officials. Either Dooley is off his rocker, or the US administration is lying.


----------



## King Solomon

Aryan_B said:


> America has done nothing hostile to KSA because the Saudi leadership and country is in their pocket exactly how they want them


 
Yes, I was talking of the Saudi *people*. Surveys suggest that most of them have negative or neutral feelings of USA. Only about 15% share positive impression, I read in a news report once.

This is despite the friendly policies of US towards SA. So my conclusion is the cause of hatred lies somewhere else.




> Nope on my part I dislike America because their action around the world are unjust



Of course. But you see it depends on perspectives. Let me illustrate:

I would agree with you that most of the Islamic world views US as enemy because of its invaison of muslim countries. However, look at countries like Phillipines, vietnam, Japan, Korea, Canada, Mexico, Europe etc? Most of them view US as a liberator and their protector. Indeed, China would already have taken over phillipines and Japan had it not been for USA post vietnam war.

For Russia, it is like neutral. I can say about 70% of russians would view US as neutral or favorable.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Developereo said:


> Nobody's avoiding the questions because the premise is flawed. If you would give your petty grandstanding a rest and indulge in basic logic, you would see that he presupposes the exact premise which we are debating.
> 
> He starts talking about 'radical Islam' and silently switches to 'Islam must reform'. In case your logic circuits are overtaxed, *he is equating 'radical Islam' with 'mainstream Islam'.*


If whatever is 'radical' today becomes 'mainstream' tomorrow...And yes, people are dancing around those excellent questions. *YOU* are afraid of them. In my opinion, just about *EVERYONE* here who anonymously railed against this imam for this fatwa, or that imam for that fatwa, will sit silent like a chastised schoolboy if they are ever in the presence of those imams and their supporters.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## King Solomon

VCheng said:


> Without going ballistic by the needless rhetoric, please try to see the three important questions:
> 
> 1. What is the factual basis of what "Islamists" say they seek to impose on the world?
> 
> 2. Does present-day Islam as is being practiced need to change, and if so, how?
> 
> 3. If it does not change, how can forces in opposition seek its self-destruction?



1. There is absolutely no factual basis of that. Most of the so-called "islamist" actions and goals are not supported by islam itself.

2. Yes it needs to change. Back to the original book ie. Koran and ignore all Hadiths. Koranic codes and arguments are just, logical and encourages progress whereas most Hadith arguments are contradictory, illogical and barbaric. eg. Koran never supports suicide bombing, killing, oppression of women, stoning to death, burka, headcover, terrorism etc. These are barbaric laws whose sources are in fabrications in the form of hadiths. Going back to the original book would solve all religious divisions, bigotry and extremism. The same form of islam would be followed that was followed during the glorious period of Islam (first 300 years) before "hadiths'' were invented.

3. Self destruction would occur automatically: according to the dialectic conflict theory. You see, at present muslims are killing muslims in Iraq and elsewhere. Over time the fi.lth would be cleaned by a natural process and original true islam based on Koran would prevail.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## anonymus

S-19 said:


> Yes, I was talking of the Saudi *people*. Surveys suggest that most of them have negative or neutral feelings of USA. Only about 15% share positive impression, I read in a news report once.
> 
> This is despite the friendly policies of US towards SA. So my conclusion is the cause of hatred lies somewhere else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course. But you see it depends on perspectives. Let me illustrate:
> 
> I would agree with you that most of the Islamic world views US as enemy because of its invaison of muslim countries. However, look at countries like Phillipines, vietnam, Japan, Korea, Canada, Mexico, Europe etc? Most of them view US as a liberator and their protector. Indeed, China would already have taken over phillipines and Japan had it not been for USA post vietnam war.
> 
> For Russia, it is like neutral. I can say about 70% of russians would view US as neutral or favorable.



And most of the people here ranting against US simply ignore one fact....

In 1991 US could have scrapped all international conventions and appropriated all the natural marine resources of the world to itself.US could park it's nave 5 miles away from a country's coastline and start fishing or drilling for Oil in it's EEZ......

Us is probably first superpower in history which rather than hegemonical appropriation of resources, set up global convention for at least partially just distribution........

In 19 century's superpowers would simply convert a resource rich country into a colony.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

S-19 said:


> 1. There is absolutely no factual basis of that. Most of the so-called "islamist" actions and goals are not supported by islam itself.


That was not the question. Please try again. But at least you demonstrated far more courage than the Islamists here. Or may be they are hiding their true selves.



anonymus said:


> And most of the people here ranting against US simply ignore one fact....
> 
> In 1991 US could have scrapped all international conventions and appropriated all the natural marine resources of the world to itself.US could park it's nave 5 miles away from a country's coastline and start fishing or drilling for Oil in it's EEZ......
> 
> Us is probably first superpower in history which rather than hegemonical appropriation of resources, set up global convention for at least partially just distribution........
> 
> *In 19 century's superpowers would simply convert a resource rich country into a colony.*


True. Colonies are usually kept in a semi-perpetual state of/with agricultural technology.


----------



## Developereo

gambit said:


> If whatever is 'radical' today becomes 'mainstream' tomorrow...



And if all South Americans become drug dealers, then, sure, Bogota would need to be nuked.

By invoking extreme hypotheticals, anything can be rationalized.



gambit said:


> And yes, people are dancing around those excellent questions. *YOU* are afraid of them.



Afraid? Try contemptuous.

It would be sad enough if the usual Faux News crowd were debating it (and they do), but for an official US military course to promote the notion is beyond the pale.

Once again, you will NOT see a course at JFSC about nuking Kinshasa or Capetown in response to Somali pirates.



gambit said:


> In my opinion, just about *EVERYONE* here who anonymously railed against this imam for this fatwa, or that imam for that fatwa, will sit silent like a chastised schoolboy if they are ever in the presence of those imams and their supporters.



Open an appropriate thread if you want to rail about the standard canard of alleged Muslim silence against radicals. That silliness had been refuted enough times, but it never stops being used when people run out of talking points.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## King Solomon

gambit said:


> That was not the question. Please try again. But at least you demonstrated far more courage than the Islamists here. Or may be they are hiding their true selves.



That is because the so called "islamists" don't know jack about what is in the book of guidance ie. Koran. They follow the extremist scholars and become radicalized through various form of brainwashing.

"What is the factual basis of what "Islamists" say they seek to impose on the world?

If that meant imposing so called "sharia" laws, killing all infidels etc. then i can assure you there is no factual basis of that. Such intentions are neither supported by the Koran nor are they possible after all.



anonymus said:


> And most of the people here ranting against US simply ignore one fact....
> 
> In 1991 US could have scrapped all international conventions and appropriated all the natural marine resources of the world to itself.US could park it's nave 5 miles away from a country's coastline and start fishing or drilling for Oil in it's EEZ......
> 
> Us is probably first superpower in history which rather than hegemonical appropriation of resources, set up global convention for at least partially just distribution........
> 
> In 19 century's superpowers would simply convert a resource rich country into a colony.



True. While people perceive US actions as "unfair'' and "hegemonic" they forget what the former powers did. The british, Spanish, italians, dutch colonised the entire world and imposed their own will, traditions, values and norms over the world.

US is relatively far better if you ask me.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## VCheng

S-19 said:


> ....................
> 3. Self destruction would occur automatically: according to the dialectic conflict theory. You see, at present muslims are killing muslims in Iraq and elsewhere. Over time the fi.lth would be cleaned by a natural process and original true islam based on Koran would prevail.



It is very likely that Islam will survive _only_ in the West over the long term.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

S-19 said:


> That is because the so called "islamists" don't know jack about what is in the book of guidance ie. Koran. They follow the extremist scholars and become radicalized through various form of brainwashing.
> 
> "What is the factual basis of what "Islamists" say they seek to impose on the world?
> 
> If that meant imposing so called "sharia" laws, killing all infidels etc. then i can assure you there is no factual basis of that. Such intentions are neither supported by the Koran nor are they possible after all.


That was not the question...Here it is again...



VCheng said:


> 1. What is the factual basis of what "Islamists" say they seek to impose on the world?


My take is that the questioner is asking 'How true is it that there are Islamists who want to wage a total war with a high religious component to it upon the non-Islamic world'?


----------



## lem34

CENTCOM said:


> This was an elective course that was taught in the Joint Professional Military Education II (JPME II) curriculum at Joint Forces Staff College (JFSC). When concerns were raised by a student and thus brought to the notice of the military leadership, the course in question was suspended. The elective course, entitled called Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism was eight weeks long and met weekly when in session. The course has been taught to some US military students at JFSC since 2004 and is conducted five times a year.  The course has been suspended pending the results of a preliminary inquiry of course content and materials to ensure that they meet the mission of the college and are in keeping with Department of Defense policies regarding professional military education. A determination on the future of the course will be made at that point. Till then we should refrain from making any judgments.
> 
> I would like to point out here that the United States is not at war with Islam or Muslims. Our war is against any terrorists who are aiming to kill innocents and disturb world peace. There are many Muslims serving in all facets of society in the United States including the US government and the military. President Obama, while addressing Muslims all over the world from Al-Azhar in Cairo,said, I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles  principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. We still strongly stand by our Presidents statements.
> 
> 
> Maj David Nevers
> DET-United States Central Command
> U.S. Central Command




if the American establishment felt there was nothing why was this course suspended? Its funny that some supposed Americans here do not accept that there is something odd or wrong in running this course when the American establishment deemed it sufficiently politically incorrect to suspend it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

gambit said:


> That was not the question...Here it is again...
> 
> 
> My take is that the questioner is asking* 'How true is it that there are Islamists who want to wage a total war with a high religious component to it upon the non-Islamic world'*?



Correctomundo. It appears to be very true, and they drew first blood too.



Aryan_B said:


> if the American establishment felt there was nothing why was this course suspended?..........



It has been suspended pending completion of an investigation. That is simply due process at work.


----------



## gambit

Developereo said:


> And if all South Americans become drug dealers, then, sure, Bogota would need to be nuked.
> 
> By invoking extreme hypotheticals, anything can be rationalized.


The current situation in Mexico is urging ordinary Americans to examine Mexico in unpleasant light given the fact that the Mexican government is resorting to quasi-military measures to keep the drug cartels under control. Escalation to military measures are *ALWAYS* an option when threats to a state also escalate. So it is not as extreme as you would like, after all, Osama bin Laden believed in one such 'extreme'. So do many here who believe that the US is attacking muslims for oil, for another Crusade, or for colonialism.



Developereo said:


> Afraid? Try contemptuous.
> 
> It would be sad enough if the usual Faux News crowd were debating it (and they do), but for an official US military course to promote the notion is beyond the pale.


Too bad I cannot bring on the Pakistani or muslim version of Fox News. But wait...Because they do not exist? Now that is a laugh...



Developereo said:


> Once again, you will NOT see a course at JFSC about nuking Kinshasa or Capetown in response to Somali pirates.


No need to.



Developereo said:


> Open an appropriate thread if you want to rail about the standard canard of alleged Muslim silence against radicals. That silliness had been refuted enough times, but it never stops being used when people run out of talking points.


Only in your mind that it has been refuted. But if you want to talk about using ridiculous talking points, may be you should look at your own regarding Fox News.



Aryan_B said:


> if the American establishment felt there was nothing why was this course suspended? Its funny that some supposed Americans here do not accept that there is something odd or wrong in running this course when *the American establishment deemed it sufficiently politically incorrect to suspend it.*


That is what you missed, that it is only out of political correctness...


----------



## pakdefender

The roots of the present day conflict are in the Israeli occupation of Jerusalum and American support to Israel , thats where it all starts from , rest is all spill over from that source. Our country has been turned into battle ground by wealthy Jews and Arabs , there is a lot of truth in this.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## King Solomon

VCheng said:


> It is very likely that Islam will survive _only_ in the West over the long term.


 
I wouldn't dispute that. Rest assured, most Muslims who live in the secular countries like Russia and west: those which are considered "infidel nations" by radical muslims live far better life than what they would in their home country. It can also be argued that Koranic values and ideals are more upheld by US' legal values rather than many "muslim" governments across the world.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## VCheng

gambit said:


> ...............
> 
> That is what you missed, that it is only out of political correctness...



............. in the startup to a sure-to-be-bitter campaign for Presidential elections. This is only one of the many shots that will bubble up.


----------



## lem34

*Dev was moved to comment on the following thread that:*

"The Ambassador is just whining. If anyone refuses to swallow the official US govt. version of anything, they are anti-American.

This silly childish tantrum is so severe, even American citizens are not immune from its effects. Anyone who questions the US government is an unpatriotic 'terrist' sympathizer. "


*Whilst the American Ambassador was whining about Pakistanis being unsympathetic in their own schools towards American policy they themselves were teaching the destruction of Islam and its holy sites. Now that is what America is about these days duplicitous and double standards and then they or should I say neo Americans on this site are surprised that they are condemned for this*

ISLAMABAD: A leaked US diplomatic cable says that senior Pakistani military officers are taught anti-American courses at a prestigious defence university in the heart of the capital.

The cable, published in Dawn newspaper on Wednesday and obtained by WikiLeaks, is likely to fan concerns about loyalties within the military after Osama bin Laden was found living in a garrison city, possibly for years.

Then US ambassador to Islamabad, Anne Patterson, wrote the cable in late 2008 in reference to the National Defence University in Islamabad.

Pakistan officially allied with the United States after the September 11, 2001 attacks in its war on the Taliban and al-Qaida, but has long been accused of playing a double game in supporting Islamist militant networks.

"Lecturers often 'teach' their students information that is heavily biased against the United States," she wrote.

Instructors, she said, "often had misperceptions about US policies and culture and infused their lectures with these suspicions".

She said some students shared those "misconceptions" despite sending their children to study in Britain and the United States.

In contrast, "students and instructors were adamant in their approval of all things Chinese," she wrote.

Cash-strapped Pakistan has relied on $18 billion from the United States since the September 11, 2001 attacks, when Pakistan officially ended support for Afghanistan's Taliban and agreed to work with Washington.

Patterson was left recommending increased opportunities for colonels and brigadiers "receiving biased NDU training" to hear alternative views of the United States and for an exchange programme for instructors.

Pakistan's military leaders were humiliated by the discovery that the head of al-Qaida, the world's most-wanted man had been living, possibly for years, near the country's top military academy two hours' drive from Islamabad.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/curren...fficers-taught-anti-us-courses-wikileaks.html

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## King Solomon

gambit said:


> That was not the question...Here it is again...
> 
> 
> My take is that the questioner is asking 'How true is it that there are Islamists who want to wage a total war with a high religious component to it upon the non-Islamic world'?



That would be true in case of bigoted extremists. However, i think you are generalizing there. People who harbor such a mentality do not compose the majority of muslims, however, the media loves to give them undue attention to vilify Islam in general.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## pk_baloch

WE ALWAYS HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT ,THIS IS THE WAR AGAINST ISLAM .NOBODY BELEIVES IT.. INFACT PENTAGON HAD PLANNED FOR IT IN 1988 ...THIS WAR IS CALLED "SULAIBI WAR" IN ISLAM..WITH THE HELP OF DV.HAROLD RHODE AND LOBBY OF OTHERS PEOPLE THEY PLANNED FOR IT ..


----------



## lem34

S-19 said:


> That would be true in case of bigoted extremists. However, i think you are generalizing there. People who harbor such a mentality do not compose the majority of muslims, however, the media loves to give them undue attention to vilify Islam in general.



In Pakistan when we have had elections Islamic parties get very little support usually less than 2 %. But S-19 mate be careful Cheng and Gambut are trying time and time again to avoid condemning that what the Americans themselves have condemned by suspending it when it got out in the mainstream

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## VCheng

Aryan_B said:


> ................
> ISLAMABAD: A leaked US diplomatic cable says that senior Pakistani military officers are taught anti-American courses at a prestigious defence university in the heart of the capital..................



So why the selective outrage at USA over something the Pakistanis themselves do?

Such scenarios are part of discussions are carried out by _all _militaries as part of their due diligence in being as best prepared against all eventualities as they possibly can be.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Developereo

gambit said:


> The current situation in Mexico is urging ordinary Americans to examine Mexico in unpleasant light given the fact that the Mexican government is resorting to quasi-military measures to keep the drug cartels under control. Escalation to military measures are *ALWAYS* an option when threats to a state also escalate.



The issue here is not escalation to military means; the US has already escalated to a military response. The two issues here are
- the notion that the enemy is all of Islam, i.e. 1.4 billion Muslims, and
- the notion that the nuclear option on civilian targets is a proper response to terrorism



gambit said:


> So it is not as extreme as you would like, after all, Osama bin Laden believed in one such 'extreme'.



So now you are equating OBL's ideology to mainstream Islam as well as the US military's. Splendid!



gambit said:


> No need to.



In the world of extreme hypotheticals, which was the example you wrote, this is a perfectly applicable analogy. And you know that such a nuclear scenario would never be taught at a US military academy, regardless of what the Somali pirates did.



gambit said:


> Only in your mind that it has been refuted.



Like I wrote, when short of talking points, you guys always run to familiar (and bogus) territory. You will NEVER accept any response, since doing so would rob you of your 'safe place'.



gambit said:


> But if you want to talk about using ridiculous talking points, may be you should look at your own regarding Fox News.



Clearly you missed the point.

My whole reason for mentioning Faux News was that such extreme hypotheticals are routinely discussed in the civilian space and we accept them for what they are. The whole reason for this uproar is that this is happening at an official course at a US military academy. That context gives it a legitimacy which the US administration has been at pains to deny.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## pakdefender

gambit said:


> Excellent questions. I look forward to seeing their evasions.
> 
> 
> You are lucky that political correctness is one such restraint of many restraints, military and philosophical, that we put upon ourselves. Else...



hahah else what ?

you will do shock and awe .... FAIL!
you will do Abu Gharaib .... FAIL!
you will burn our Holy Book ... FAIL!
you will kill Muslim chidlren .... FAIL!
you will urinate on dead bodies ... FAIL!

America cannot defeat Islam .. Islam is too powerfull a force for any human being to defeat!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lem34

mastbalochi said:


> WE ALWAYS HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT ,THIS IS THE WAR AGAINST ISLAM .NOBODY BELEIVES IT.. INFACT PENTAGON HAD PLANNED FOR IT IN 1988 ...THIS WAR IS CALLED "SULAIBI WAR" IN ISLAM



Not only that but they dismiss and one who suggests this as a conspiracy theorist. But then they are following the adage if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth. Simply Americans are liars and stand exposed


----------



## gambit

S-19 said:


> That would be true in case of bigoted extremists. However, i think you are generalizing there. People who harbor such a mentality do not compose the majority of muslims, however, the media loves to give them undue attention to vilify Islam in general.


Dooley, as a military officer, is morally obligated to speculate even to the extremes, of any threats to his country. Religious leaders do this all the time. They see their religious lives as in continuous competition for souls. If not to literally destroy people, then to cast so serious doubts about what a person believe that the person will destroy himself and convert. Dooley clearly spoke about a 'model' and that his model for intellectual discussions is not representative of the US government's. So if it is fine for muslims to speak of raising the crescent moon flag over the White House, via war if necessary and to many preferably, then why is it improper for a military officer to go his extreme model?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## King Solomon

Aryan_B said:


> In Pakistan when we have had elections Islamic parties get very little support usually less than 2 %. But S-19 mate be careful Cheng and Gambut are trying time and time again to avoid condemning that what the Americans themselves have condemned by suspending it when it got out in the mainstream



Yes I know. But Cheng, I think, is trying to say that such exercises are "contingencies" and are normal part of any nuclear armed country in the world. I kind of agree with him in this point. You see, the holy sites are a very vulnerable point for muslims. If US wants to push the islamic world into chaos, they will just have to nuke mecca/medina and civil war would start in all muslim countries to get rid of their pro western governments. From a strategic point of view, I;m sure US does hold exercises for such a scenario.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lem34

VCheng said:


> It has been suspended pending completion of an investigation. That is simply due process at work.



It would not have been suspended if it was not felt that it was outlandish. But then we will now get the usual dishonest and disingenuous wait and see bull from you eh?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

S-19 said:


> Yes I know. But Cheng, I think, is trying to say that such exercises are "contingencies" and are normal part of any nuclear armed country in the world. I kind of agree with him in this point. You see, the holy sites are a very vulnerable point for muslims. If US wants to push the islamic world into chaos, they will just have to nuke mecca/medina and civil war would start in all muslim countries to get rid of their pro western governments. From a strategic point of view, I;m sure US does hold exercises for such a scenario.




Of course. It would be simply too stupid not to be aware of those possibilities and their ramifications. I really don't see the reasons for this fuss that is being attempted, except as a manifestation of the irrational hatred and bigotry that the course itself is studying, which only serves to rationalize it even further. Ironic, to say the least!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## King Solomon

gambit said:


> Dooley, as a military officer, is morally obligated to speculate even to the extremes, of any threats to his country. Religious leaders do this all the time. They see their religious lives as in continuous competition for souls. If not to literally destroy people, then to cast so serious doubts about what a person believe that the person will destroy himself and convert. Dooley clearly spoke about a 'model' and that his model for intellectual discussions is not representative of the US government's. So if it is fine for muslims to speak of raising the crescent moon flag over the White House, via war if necessary and to many preferably, then why is it improper for a military officer to go his extreme model?


 
I do agree with that from a strategic point of view. I cannot disagree that many extremists call for killing all infidel americans and marching to white house. Officers like Dooley seem to be parallel to these extremists. Then again, the extremists come from backward areas and from backward school of thoughts.* Is it just to draw parallels between such extremists and one of the most professional military force in the world?*

As I said here, I do recognise such exercises may be done from a strategic point of view. But it may also be the case of blind hatred for Islam which needs to be further investigated



> Yes I know. But Cheng, I think, is trying to say that such exercises are "contingencies" and are normal part of any nuclear armed country in the world. I kind of agree with him in this point. You see, the holy sites are a very vulnerable point for muslims. If US wants to push the islamic world into chaos, they will just have to nuke mecca/medina and civil war would start in all muslim countries to get rid of their pro western governments. From a strategic point of view, I;m sure US does hold exercises for such a scenario.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## pakdefender

gambit said:


> Dooley, as a military officer, is morally obligated to speculate even to the extremes, of any threats to his country. Religious leaders do this all the time. They see their religious lives as in continuous competition for souls. If not to literally destroy people, then to cast so serious doubts about what a person believe that the person will destroy himself and convert. Dooley clearly spoke about a 'model' and that his model for intellectual discussions is not representative of the US government's. So if it is fine for muslims to speak of raising the crescent moon flag over the White House, via war if necessary and to many preferably, then why is it improper for a military officer to go his extreme model?




Lt Col Dooley contradictions himself in his presentation , at one poin in his presentation he has listed AQ stratergy to make America do things that will discredit the US in Muslim countrires than like a moron he goes on to say they they should do Hiroshima on Makkah and Madina , as if that will give a boost to America's credibility in Muslim countires

Sound like US military officers have lost the plot .. these are signs of defeat


----------



## lem34

VCheng said:


> So why the selective outrage at USA over something the Pakistanis themselves do?
> 
> Such scenarios are part of discussions are carried out by _all _militaries as part of their due diligence in being as best prepared against all eventualities as they possibly can be.



You missed the point but I have now come to the conclusion that your and gambutts intellect do not match your education and prevent you from coming out of the cult type of worship you have of attaining a green card. You are America's answers to some of those Muslims that learn little else than learn the Koran off by heart and then speak as if they are all knowing.

it could be made American policy tomorrow to amputate the legs of newly naturalized Americans and you would find some merit in it


----------



## Developereo

S-19 said:


> But Cheng, I think, is trying to say that such exercises are "contingencies" and are normal part of any nuclear armed country in the world. I kind of agree with him in this point.



There is no such contingency for nuking Bogota and Sao Paolo to fight the war on drugs (which has gone upwards of $15 trillion and several decades).

There is no such contingency for nuking Kinshasa and Capetown to retaliate for Somali pirates.

Do you know why?

Because it is UNTHINKABLE to apply collective blame and punishment for those actions to an entire group of people. The US administration has repeatedly stated that the US applies the same logic to terrorism and does NOT view it as a collective Islamic issue. This course runs completely counter to the official statements of the US administration and makes liars out of them.

The issue here is not Lt. Dooley's private thoughts. He is free to speculate and write books on them. The issue is the promotion of this attitude to military personnel in an official capacity at a US military academy.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## pk_baloch

THE MUSHRAKEENS HAVE BEEN AGAINST ISLAM FOR THOUSAND YEARS BUT THEY ALWAYS FAILED ....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## anonymus

S-19 said:


> Yes I know. But Cheng, I think, is trying to say that such exercises are "contingencies" and are normal part of any nuclear armed country in the world. I kind of agree with him in this point. You see, the holy sites are a very vulnerable point for muslims. If US wants to push the islamic world into chaos, they will just have to nuke mecca/medina and civil war would start in all muslim countries to get rid of their pro western governments. From a strategic point of view, I;m sure US does hold exercises for such a scenario.



That is very much of an practical impossibility.....

There is a higher chance of Israel Nuking Mecca and Medina (They have such a plan named "samson's option") if they have been nuked.........

But it anyone would be hardpressed to imagine a scenario where US has to do it.The only one i can think about is if whole lot of countries (Pakistan included) get united and goes crazy and do something like presenting a convert or die ultimatum to rest of world and start lobbing Nukes all over the place.



mastbalochi said:


> THE MUSHRAKEENS HAVE BEEN AGAINST ISLAM FOR THOUSAND YEARS BUT THEY ALWAYS FAILED ....



Please type in English not crazy..........


----------



## pk_baloch

READ THIS 

http://http://ummat.com.pk/story/2012/05/13/5732/


----------



## gambit

Developereo said:


> The issue here is not escalation to military means; *the US has already escalated to a military response.* The two issues here are
> - the notion that the enemy is all of Islam, i.e. 1.4 billion Muslims, and
> - the notion that the nuclear option on civilian targets is a proper response to terrorism


Bunk. Even in the American military academies, there are valid time for open intellectual discussions about subjects that are related to national defense. Dooley *CLEARLY* did stated that his model (or modeling) is not representative of the US government's but to encourage discussion.



Developereo said:


> So now you are equating OBL's ideology to mainstream Islam as well as the US military's. Splendid!


Nonsense. And taking my comment so grossly out of context further reveals your fears about those questions. If one man can believe in an extreme, so can another, and another, and another. Soon enough he will have something like the 19 who are revered by many muslims.



Developereo said:


> In the world of extreme hypotheticals, which was the example you wrote, this is a perfectly applicable analogy. And *you know that such a nuclear scenario would never be taught at a US military academy*, regardless of what the Somali pirates did.


I am not talking using extreme measures like nuclear weapons against petty criminals. Pirates do what they do for petty profits and physical pleasure in this life. Religionists do what they do for much higher causes. Looks like it is *YOUR* arguments that are extremely unrelated to this subject.



Developereo said:


> Like I wrote, when short of talking points, you guys always run to familiar (and bogus) territory. You will NEVER accept any response, since doing so would rob you of your 'safe place'.


You mean like AIPAC, the Jews, the Zionists...

Buddy, I live in a country where we call our Presidents anything from crooks to sex fiends. So yes, I will hold all muslims to that same standard. Anything less from the muslims about their own leadership, then you are silent sheeple as far as I am concerned.



Developereo said:


> Clearly you missed the point.
> 
> My whole reason for mentioning Faux News was that such extreme hypotheticals are routinely discussed in the civilian space and we accept them for what they are. The whole reason for this uproar is that this is happening at an official course at a US military academy. That context gives it a legitimacy which the US administration has been at pains to deny.


I guess this further confirm the notion of freedom of speech is alien to muslims.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## King Solomon

VCheng said:


> Of course. It would be simply too stupid not to be aware of those possibilities and their ramifications. I really don't see the reasons for this fuss that is being attempted, except as a manifestation of the irrational hatred and bigotry that the course itself is studying, which only serves to rationalize it even further. Ironic, to say the least!


 
I know where are you coming from. I have no problem with such exercises if they are conducted from a strategic, contengincy point of view. But, *are you sure this is the case of a strategic contingency and not a blind hatred? * The way it is illustrated in the papers, it seems that it is the latter. If it were a contingency case, the matter would be clearly highlighted.

Maybe I am wrong. I would be obliged if you could prove that it is indeed the study of a strategic contingency and *not* blind hatred on part of the officer.


----------



## lem34

gambit said:


> Bunk. Even in the American military academies, there are valid time for open intellectual discussions about subjects that are related to national defense. Dooley *CLEARLY* did stated that his model (or modeling) is not representative of the US government's but to encourage discussion.



Why the outrage in America when Iranian govt wants to encourage discussion and invites people to talk about the holocaust and Jews

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

S-19 said:


> ..........are you sure this is the case of a strategic contingency and not a blind hatred? The way it is illustrated in the papers, it seems that it is the latter. If it were a contingency case, the matter would be clearly highlighted.
> 
> Maybe I am wrong. I would be obliged if you could prove that it is indeed the study of a strategic contingency and *not* blind hatred on part of the officer.



I would wait for the investigation report to be completed. The newspapers are merely doing whatever they can to sell the story. 

There was a complaint against the content of the course. The course was suspended and an investigation launched. It would be correct to wait for the final report to be completed and then decide.


----------



## lem34

gambit said:


> Nonsense. And taking my comment so grossly out of context further reveals your fears about those questions. If one man can believe in an extreme, so can another, and another, and another. Soon enough he will have something like the 19 who are revered by many muslims.
> 
> 
> .



funny out of the 98% Muslims in Pakistan who would not vote for an Islamic party you seem to spend an awful lot of disproportionate time discussing these individuals as if they were representative of all Muslims

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Developereo

gambit said:


> Bunk. Even in the American military academies, there are valid time for open intellectual discussions about subjects that are related to national defense. Dooley *CLEARLY* did stated that his model (or modeling) is not representative of the US government's but to encourage discussion.



Once again, we are not talking about idle chatter in the mess hall, but an official course whose whole purpose is to explore viable options. I am fairly certain the US military doesn't waste their soldiers' time on nonviable options.



gambit said:


> Nonsense. And taking my comment so grossly out of context further reveals your fears about those questions.



You spoke of 'extreme' views and the ones in this course qualify.



gambit said:


> If one man can believe in an extreme, so can another, and another, and another. Soon enough he will have something like the 19 who are revered by many muslims.



You are simply restating the premise, not providing any new arguments.



gambit said:


> I am not talking using extreme measures like nuclear weapons against petty criminals. Pirates do what they do for petty profits and physical pleasure in this life. Religionists do what they do for much higher causes. Looks like it is *YOUR* arguments that are extremely unrelated to this subject.



I am taking this one silly hypothetical (for Muslims) and applying it to other groups to show the absurdity of the extrapolation.



gambit said:


> You mean like AIPAC, the Jews, the Zionists...



Yawn. Shifting topics so soon?



gambit said:


> I guess this further confirm the notion of freedom of speech is alien to muslims.



What is alien is the application of common sense. As I wrote, Dooley can do anything he wants in his private capacity, but, when he is speaking on behalf of the US military in an official course, then his 'freedom of speech' is very much limited. He must abide by certain guidelines which, one would hope, would be conformant with official pronouncements of the US govt.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lem34

gambit said:


> Buddy, I live in a country where we call our Presidents anything from crooks to sex fiends. So yes, I will hold all muslims to that same standard. Anything less from the muslims about their own leadership, then you are silent sheeple as far as I am concerned.
> 
> 
> I guess this further confirm the notion of freedom of speech is alien to muslims.



Yet your idea of democracy is to allow a small group known as AIPAC subvert democracy. Try talking about the holocaust in terms that AIPAC does not like and see how quickly you are marginaloised and punished


----------



## anonymus

Aryan_B said:


> funny out of the 98% Muslims in Pakistan who would not vote for an Islamic party you seem to spend an awful lot of disproportionate time discussing these individuals as if they were representative of all Muslims



Voting patterns are of not much value in a parliamentary democracy.

People support parties for varied reasons like that they would be provided with subsidised ration,mixer grinder (favourait in state on Tamil nadu) or computers.

The 2% you are talking about is hardcore jihadis.People who vote for PPP or Muslim league are not liberals as seen in the aftermath of the death of Salman tasser.

The crowd that fundamentalist like hafiz saeed could draw is an indication of radicalisation of pakistanis.


----------



## anonymus

Aryan_B said:


> Yet your idea of democracy is to allow a small group known as AIPAC subvert democracy. Try talking about the holocaust in terms that AIPAC does not like and see how quickly you are marginaloised and punished


*Rants!!!!!!!!!!Nothing of substance........*​


S-19 said:


> I know where are you coming from. I have no problem with such exercises if they are conducted from a strategic, contengincy point of view. But, *are you sure this is the case of a strategic contingency and not a blind hatred? * The way it is illustrated in the papers, it seems that it is the latter. If it were a contingency case, the matter would be clearly highlighted.
> 
> Maybe I am wrong. I would be obliged if you could prove that it is indeed the study of a strategic contingency and *not* blind hatred on part of the officer.



Probably it was a mixture of both.........

The officer must have been given a task to theorize about radical islam takeover of Arabia and pakistan and the solution he theorized was that of Nuking mecca and medina.


----------



## Developereo

Aryan_B said:


> funny out of the 98% Muslims in Pakistan who would not vote for an Islamic party you seem to spend an awful lot of disproportionate time discussing these individuals as if they were representative of all Muslims



This course is analogous to some terrorists who take the actions of rogue American soldiers massacring Muslim civilians and declare that all of Christendom must be annihilated in response.

Those nutjobs are condemned as extremist terrorists, yet here we see people defending the US military officials doing the exact same thing in reverse.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lem34

VCheng said:


> I would wait for the investigation report to be completed. The newspapers are merely doing whatever they can to sell the story.
> 
> There was a complaint against the content of the course. The course was suspended and an investigation launched. It would be correct to wait for the final report to be completed and then decide.


*
And now we have the Cheng school of sophisticated trolling and in response I invite everyone to copy this post and everytime we hear this wait and see paste it for everyone to see:*

There was this village boy who gets a horse on his 14th birthday 

Everybody in the village says; "What a wonderful gift" 

The Zen master says "We'll see" 

A year later, the boy falls off the horse and breaks his leg. 

Everyone in the village says; "How terrible that the boy is suffering" 

The Zen master says, "We'll see"

A war is on the horizon and the boy isn't sent off to fight on account of his injured leg. 

Everybody in the village exclaim "How lucky this boy is !!!"

The Zen master says "We'll see......" 

I think you catch the drift.

This is the infinite loop on the argument that he keeps tapping into for all his posts and at the end of the ordeal he tries to come off as the wise Zen master and rest as village imbeciles who didn't know any better than to pick sides.Pretty much pointless to argue against until you define just where your line in the sand is...bugging out!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## anonymus

sir jee said:


> haramday qadiani love defending americans and indians.



Did you forgot your daily medications today.......


PS: are you an alternate Id of Aryan_B.He is the only one who hated Vcheng here ?


----------



## Khalnaldo

Coltsfan said:


> You have to be naive to believe that document.
> 
> Having said that, if US ever decides that it is in its absolute national interest to destroy the holiest of cities, there is nothing you or Allah SBWT will be able to do to save them
> 
> :



Let them try.  
Wars are won with mighty hearts and belief. Turn pages of islamic history and you'll see. No matter how divided muslim world is right now, attack on the Holy Land will clear all divisions. Besides power will shift from USA in next 20 years and then what?


----------



## lem34

anonymus said:


> Did you forgot your daily medications today.......
> 
> 
> PS: are you an alternate Id of Aryan_B.He is the only one who hated Vcheng here ?



I like Cheng. Just because we appear to disagree on everything does not mean I hate him. To be honest if he was to come to the UK I would welcome him with open arms and entertain him. We need to be tolerant of divergent views. If he is Pakistani and wishes well for Pakistan that's fine by me.

I do not approve of what sir jee has stated.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## VCheng

Khalnaldo said:


> Let them try.
> Wars are won with mighty hearts and belief. ................



Don't weaponry and tactics also play a role, may be, possibly?



Aryan_B said:


> ............ If he is Pakistani and wishes well for Pakistan that's fine by me.
> 
> ...................



There is no IF needed here. I am, and I do.


----------



## lem34

VCheng said:


> There is no IF needed here. I am, and I do.



That was a message of support and it was a rhetorical question.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

VCheng said:


> 1. What is the factual basis of what "Islamists" say they seek to impose on the world?



It is a fact that, while there are many groups in the world that want to see USA decline, it is only a radical Islamist group that has directly initiated warfare, and not just on 9/11. One can argue that was in response to US policies, but seen from purely the defense perspective of the US military, their nation is under attack, and they have a duty to protect it as ordered by their government.

(I would strenuously argue that the best way to change the perceived wrongs of US policies is political, not war, but that belongs in another discussion surely.)

What the Islamist groups are fighting for is annihilation of the US. That is clear. Equally clearly, it is the duty of the US military to protect USA. Both sides are playing for the highest stakes.



VCheng said:


> 2. Does present-day Islam as is being practiced need to change, and if so, how?



Present day Islam is struggling to find its identity, and many societies in the world are caught up in that struggle either directly (for example in the Middle East) and indirectly (for example USA). The process of updating medieval concepts and practices is gut-wrenching to many traditionalists and confusing for modernists, and thus messy for everyone to participate or watch alike. And there is no choice but to put up with the mess as it is slowly sorted out. After all, all religions go through such phases periodically.



VCheng said:


> 3. If it does not change, how can forces in opposition seek its self-destruction?



I have no doubt in my mind that the practice of Islam will continue to change, as it has already since its inception. After all, it is defined as a religion for all times to come. How can it not remain static? Thus opposing forces need to be assured that it will never self-destruct, either from within or without. It is here to stay, but it will evolve. It must.

=========================================

Dooley's course is an exceedingly small issue compared to the big picture. Politicizing of this issue internally in the midst of a Presidential election, or internationally as some sinister conspiracy affecting the very survival of Islam (which it most certainly does not), are both disingenuous and directed by set agendas. 

In the US, this issue will be used to rile up both the left to improve political correctness, and the right to blame the Administration for being soft on terror when it tries to be politically correct. Internationally, this issue will be used to increase radical recruitment and fund-raising by the "See-I-told-you-so-USA-is-the-Great-Satan-out-to-destroy-Islam" crowd.

========================================

Since I am quite famous for my predictions, I will predict that all of these will prove to be a flashes in the pan and fizzle out as the year proceeds. Until the next great contrived issue is released on cue, of course. ( May be. May be not.  )

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lem34

Don't you think you are going some what off topic. Just think about it if there was a course for genocide of Jews what would happen to the guys who started the course. I mean even an inadvertent remark ends peoples careers with charges of anti anti semitism


----------



## VCheng

Aryan_B said:


> Don't you think you are going some what off topic. Just think about it if there was a course for genocide of Jews what would happen to the guys who started the course. I mean even an inadvertent remark ends peoples careers with charges of anti anti semitism



Not really. I have tried to not only answer the questions posed by the course directly, but also tried to put the course itself in perspective. I hope it makes for some good discussion.


----------



## Wright

S-19 said:


> I wouldn't dispute that. Rest assured, most Muslims who live in the secular countries like Russia and west: those which are considered "infidel nations" by radical muslims live far better life than what they would in their home country. It can also be argued that Koranic values and ideals are more upheld by US' legal values rather than many "muslim" governments across the world.



Exactly, I have always wondered why nations like Japan, Sweden, etc. Who carry almost no religious belief are so much more peaceful, and less corrupt than the holy, chaste "Islamic republic's".



anonymus said:


> Even with its fault USA is probably the most benign and just superpower world has seen..............
> 
> Last one including British and Romans before them were much more unjust.......



You forgot to Include the Arab empires, Mongols, and Turkic.



pakdefender said:


> hahah else what ?
> 
> you will do shock and awe .... FAIL!
> you will do Abu Gharaib .... FAIL!
> you will burn our Holy Book ... FAIL!
> you will kill Muslim chidlren .... FAIL!
> you will urinate on dead bodies ... FAIL!
> 
> America cannot defeat Islam .. Islam is too powerfull a force for any human being to defeat!!



It is an idea among many idea's. However I would say poverty being something quantifiable is far more stronger. And much more difficult to eradicate. Muslims know this well. For they bear the bulk of it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## pakdefender

Wright said:


> Exactly, I have always wondered why nations like Japan, Sweden, etc. Who carry almost no religious belief are so much more peaceful, and less corrupt than the holy, chaste "Islamic republic's".
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to Include the Arab empires, Mongols, and Turkic.
> 
> 
> 
> It is an idea among many idea's. However I would say poverty being something quantifiable is far more stronger. And much more difficult to eradicate. Muslims know this well. For they bear the bulk of it.



Just admit it that you cannot win a War against Islam instead of making references to poverty


----------



## King Solomon

pakdefender said:


> Just admit it that you cannot win a War against Islam instead of making references to poverty



I have already proved before Muslims can't do nothing if US does decide to nuke Mecca/Medina. It is you who should admit the reality.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

pakdefender said:


> Just admit it that you cannot win a War against Islam instead of making references to poverty


 


S-19 said:


> I have already proved before Muslims can't do nothing if US does decide to nuke Mecca/Medina. It is you who should admit the reality.



Both of the above are merely personal opinions about hypothetical situations, proving nothing, and therefore rather pointless for discussion.


----------



## King Solomon

VCheng said:


> Both of the above are merely personal opinions about hypothetical situations, proving nothing, and therefore rather pointless for discussion.



Personal opinions *based on logic* --> relevant to the topic --> hypothetical but possible --> suited to discussions. That is why we are in an online forum after all.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

S-19 said:


> Personal opinions *based on logic* --> relevant to the topic --> *hypothetical but possible* --> suited to discussions. That is why we are in an online forum after all.



The part in bold is where your chain breaks down, unfortunately.

The discussion cannot be more than whether Batman beats Ironman!


----------



## King Solomon

VCheng said:


> The part in bold is where your chain breaks down, unfortunately.
> 
> The discussion cannot be more than whether Batman beats Ironman!



Similar to how you were hypothetically defending the Officer based on your _presumption_ that it was a contingency exercise?


----------



## VCheng

S-19 said:


> Similar to how you were hypothetically defending the Officer based on your _presumption_ that it was a contingency exercise?



No Sir. Contingency exercises and war scenario modeling are well-established _facts_, and the course was a part of said modeling exercises.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## pakdefender

S-19 said:


> I have already proved before Muslims can't do nothing if US does decide to nuke Mecca/Medina. It is you who should admit the reality.



Perhaps muslims cannot stop such an event as it has to take place any way! 

There are some Islamic prophecies which have foretold about such like things happening in Makkah:

Umar bin al-Khattab reported that he heard the Prophet &#1589;&#1604;&#1609; &#1575;&#1604;&#1604;&#1607; &#1593;&#1604;&#1610;&#1607; &#1608;&#1587;&#1604;&#1605; say: "The people of Mecca will leave, and only a few people will pass through it. Then, it will be resettled and rebuilt; then, the people will leave it again, and no-one will ever return." 

Ibn 'Abbas narrated that the Prophet &#1589;&#1604;&#1609; &#1575;&#1604;&#1604;&#1607; &#1593;&#1604;&#1610;&#1607; &#1608;&#1587;&#1604;&#1605; said: "It is as if I can see him now: he is Black ( will it be Obama ? ) and his legs are widely spaced (bow-legged). He will destroy the Ka'bah stone by stone." (Musnad Ahmad) 

Shu'ba narrated that the Prophet &#1589;&#1604;&#1609; &#1575;&#1604;&#1604;&#1607; &#1593;&#1604;&#1610;&#1607; &#1608;&#1587;&#1604;&#1605; said: " The Hour (of Resurrection) will not be occur till the Hajj (Pilgrimage to Mecca) is abandoned." (Bukhari) 

So perhpaps these things will happen any way till the Final Hour is upon us


----------



## King Solomon

VCheng said:


> No Sir. Contingency exercises and war scenario modeling are well-established _facts_, and the course was a part of said modeling exercises.



Then you might wish to check my arguments with pakdefender - they were based on well-established logical facts as well.

However "well-established" they may seem to you, it is true that you *presumed* that in this particular case, the Officer was running a contingency scenario and *not* based on blind hatred for Islam/muslims. Although such a "presumption" *cannot* yet be proved by "well-established" facts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

S-19 said:


> Then you might wish to check my arguments with pakdefender - they were based on well-established logical facts as well.
> 
> However "well-established" they may seem to you, it is true that you *presumed* that in this particular case, the Officer was running a contingency scenario and *not* based on blind hatred for Islam/muslims. Although such a "presumption" *cannot* yet be proved by "well-established" facts.



Wrong again. What I said was that his course was part of such an educational process. I already have stated that the final investigation report will establish it to be the case or not as to his motive, avoiding that presumption on my part.


----------



## pakdefender

VCheng said:


> Both of the above are merely personal opinions about hypothetical situations, proving nothing, and therefore rather pointless for discussion.



Ok may I ask , how to do think America can win 'Total War' against Islam as the topic says so ? same question for S-19 as he seems to think that he has proven that America can win a War against Islam

Sure America can hit the Holy sites but can they really win a War against Islam ? there is no way they can but lets hear it from all the american cheer leaders , with all their logic , on HOW america can win a war against Islam


----------



## gambit

Aryan_B said:


> Why the outrage in America when Iranian govt wants to encourage discussion and invites people to talk about the holocaust and Jews


Outrage is not the same as censorship. Can you show me where in America does the academic institutions forbid the discussions of the Holocaust?


----------



## pakdefender

gambit said:


> Outrage is not the same as censorship. Can you show me where in America does the academic institutions forbid the discussions of the Holocaust?



In America and in Europe no one is allowed to question the narrative of the Holocaust , debate on the number of Jews killed by the Nazis will never be allowed


----------



## gambit

Developereo said:


> Once again, we are not talking about idle chatter in the mess hall, but an official course whose whole purpose is to explore viable options. I am fairly certain the US military doesn't waste their soldiers' time on nonviable options.


Are you telling me that military academies in Pakistan have nothing similar?



Developereo said:


> You spoke of 'extreme' views and the ones in this course qualify.


So how does defending academic freedom turn to associating Al-Qaeda's ideology to that of 'mainstream' muslims'?



Developereo said:


> You are simply restating the premise, not providing any new arguments.


No need to present any new arguments when the current criticism about Dooley is proving to be problematic for you.



Developereo said:


> I am taking this one silly hypothetical (for Muslims) and applying it to other groups to show the absurdity of the extrapolation.


Not too long ago, it was absurd for dedicated muslims to attack Americans on US soil, even after the WTC towers had a failed underground parking garage bomb, it was still absurd and quite hypothetical.



Developereo said:


> Yawn. Shifting topics so soon?


Do not like it when the table is turned? 



Developereo said:


> What is alien is the application of common sense. As I wrote, Dooley can do anything he wants in his private capacity, but, *when he is speaking on behalf of the US military* in an official course, then his 'freedom of speech' is very much limited. He must abide by certain guidelines which, one would hope, would be conformant with official pronouncements of the US govt.


Did he? The removal of his 'course', if we are to be generous and call it that, was not because of its intellectual absurdity but because of its social and political sensitivity, as in we are bending over backwards to accommodate overly sensitive muslims sensibilities. No one in the muslim world give a damn about Christian and Jewish sensitivities.


----------



## anonymus

pakdefender said:


> Ok may I ask , how to do think America can win *'Total War'* against Islam as the topic says so ? same question for S-19 as he seems to think that he has proven that America can win a War against Islam
> 
> Sure America can hit the Holy sites but can they really win a War against Islam ? there is no way they can but lets hear it from all the american cheer leaders , with all their logic , on HOW america can win a war against Islam



Your argument is fallacious.It violates the very definition of total war.

In total war,Enemy civilians and industrial and social facilities are targeted.It is easier for USA to win a total war compared to a limited war.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## gambit

pakdefender said:


> In America and in Europe no one is allowed to question the narrative of the Holocaust , debate on the number of Jews killed by the Nazis will never be allowed


Am interested in the US. Can you show me any federal and/or state laws that forbid discussions about the Holocaust. Remember, give only US laws.



Aryan_B said:


> Don't you think you are going some what off topic. Just think about it if there was a course for genocide of Jews what would happen to the guys who started the course. I mean even an inadvertent remark ends peoples careers with charges of anti anti semitism


Is Dooley presenting his discussion in Mecca? Or is he presenting it in the US in an academic setting? So what is preventing a bunch of imams creating a course on how the wipe Israel off the map in Mecca or in Abbottabad? Not a damn thing. Nice try on misleading.



Khalnaldo said:


> Let them try.
> Wars are won with mighty hearts and belief. Turn pages of islamic history and you'll see. No matter how divided muslim world is right now, attack on the Holy Land will clear all divisions. Besides power will shift from USA in next 20 years and then what?


Dooley's model does not based upon the current division in the House of Islam but upon the premise that this House is united and is waging an all out war upon the West.



pakdefender said:


> Lt Col Dooley contradictions himself in his presentation , at one poin in his presentation he has listed AQ stratergy to make America do things that will discredit the US in Muslim countrires than like a moron he goes on to say they they should do Hiroshima on Makkah and Madina , as if that will give a boost to America's credibility in Muslim countires
> 
> Sound like US military officers have lost the plot .. these are signs of defeat


I doubt that you actually read Dooley's presentation and am willing to bet my next year's salary that if you ever meet the colonel and engage him in a genuine intellectual debate about the subject, he would wipe the floor with you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## pakdefender

anonymus said:


> Your argument is fallacious.It violates the very definition of total war.
> 
> In total war,Enemy civilians and industrial and social facilities are targeted.It is easier for USA to win a total war compared to a limited war.




No it cannot win , american military requires a lot of life support to function whcih at the moment it gets from pro-western implants in muslim countries , 'Total War' will mean a break down of this life support system the US military will be very in-effective


----------



## anonymus

pakdefender said:


> No it cannot win , american military requires a lot of life support to function whcih at the moment it gets from pro-western implants in muslim countries , 'Total War' will mean a break down of this life support system the US military will be very in-effective



Dear total war means that America would simply Carpet Bomb it's enemies leaving no one alive to cause trouble afterward.Leave aside nukes even a fuel-air bomb has a destructive power of 0.5 Kt nuke.

Again,you should make your mind clear as to whether you are seeking clarification about "total war","war" or "limited conflict".

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Developereo said:


> *There is no such contingency for nuking Bogota and Sao Paolo to fight the war on drugs (which has gone upwards of $15 trillion and several decades).*
> 
> There is no such contingency for nuking Kinshasa and Capetown to retaliate for Somali pirates.
> 
> Do you know why?
> 
> Because it is UNTHINKABLE to apply collective blame and punishment for those actions to an entire group of people. The US administration has repeatedly stated that the US applies the same logic to terrorism and does NOT view it as a collective Islamic issue. This course runs completely counter to the official statements of the US administration and makes liars out of them.


That argument failed a long time ago. The 'war on drugs' is about the conflict within everyone who may or may not chose to destroy him/herself in self interest. No state or ideology is involved. However, if the drug cartels managed to unite under one banner, take over any Central and/or South America country, and begins to act like a state, then that is a different course of discussion. Your attempt to mislead failed. Again.



Developereo said:


> *The issue here is not Lt. Dooley's private thoughts.* He is free to speculate and write books on them. The issue is the promotion of this attitude to military personnel in an official capacity at a US military academy.


Of course it is. This is about freedom of speech in an academic setting. Must be difficult to grasp.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## pakdefender

gambit said:


> Am interested in the US. Can you show me any federal and/or state laws that forbid discussions about the Holocaust. Remember, give only US laws.
> 
> 
> Is Dooley presenting his discussion in Mecca? Or is he presenting it in the US in an academic setting? So what is preventing a bunch of imams creating a course on how the wipe Israel off the map in Mecca or in Abbottabad? Not a damn thing. Nice try on misleading.
> 
> 
> Dooley's model does not based upon the current division in the House of Islam but upon the premise that this House is united and is waging an all out war upon the West.
> 
> 
> I doubt that you actually read Dooley's presentation and am willing to bet my next year's salary that if you ever meet the colonel and engage him in a genuine intellectual debate about the subject, he would wipe the floor with you.




yeah I read the duffer's presentation , its available online here

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2012/05/dooley_counter_jihad_op_design_v11.pdf

Go to slide 11 and read the heading he has made under 'AQ Military Strategy' which states :

'Provoke America into actions across the Muslim world that will destroy its credibility and that of the "apostate" regimes that it supports'

stupid idiot also used the cover of a time magazine story on slide 21 .. lol


----------



## gambit

pakdefender said:


> No it cannot win , american military requires a lot of life support to function whcih at the moment it gets from pro-western implants in muslim countries , 'Total War' will mean a break down of this life support system the US military will be very in-effective


This nonsensical whatever it is indicate you have no arguments left and must resort to vague generalities.


----------



## King Solomon

pakdefender said:


> No it cannot win , american military requires a lot of life support to function whcih at the moment it gets from pro-western implants in muslim countries , 'Total War' will mean a break down of this life support system the US military will be very in-effective



I already, clearly explained to you that US can nuke Mecca/Medina and get away with a total war on Islam. ALL of your arguments were proven false. Maybe you need to refer to our previous discussion in this topic?


----------



## gambit

pakdefender said:


> yeah I read the duffer's presentation , its available online here
> 
> http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/da...design_v11.pdf
> 
> Go to slide 11 and read the heading he has made under 'AQ Military Strategy' which states :
> 
> 'Provoke America into actions across the Muslim world that will destroy its credibility and that of the "apostate" regimes that it supports'
> 
> stupid idiot also used the cover of a time magazine story on slide 21 .. lol


Good...Then what does slide one say?


----------



## pakdefender

Its interesting to note that the presentation starts with 'So what can we do?' which seems to indicate that they have run out of options and all the weapons that they have been using till now have not got them the result they wanted!

This is is implicit acceptance of defeat!


----------



## gambit

pakdefender said:


> Its interesting to note that the presentation starts with 'So what can we do?' which seems to indicate that they have run out of options and all the weapons that they have been using till now have not got them the result they wanted!
> 
> *This is is implicit acceptance of defeat!*


Then what is the big deal over this? Go and crow about it and let US talk about our...errr...'defeat'. 

And am still waiting on that list of US laws that forbids any discussion about the Holocaust.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## anonymus

pakdefender said:


> Its interesting to note that the presentation starts with 'So what can we do?' which seems to indicate that they have run out of options and all the weapons that they have been using till now have not got them the result they wanted!
> 
> This is is implicit acceptance of defeat!



Whatever rocks your boat...................

Edit...............................
A much better interpretation of 'so what we can do' would be that situation has came to such a pass that US has to go full monty ie whole of the population has became enemy thus making total war necessary.


----------



## laiqs@mi

S-19 said:


> I already, clearly explained to you that US can nuke Mecca/Medina and get away with a total war on Islam. ALL of your arguments were proven false. Maybe you need to refer to our previous discussion in this topic?


impossible... 
you do not know muslims. a muslim a very corrupt one if is provoked may do wonders which Christean crusaders or jews or any other can not think leave alone true muslims.


----------



## laiqs@mi

S-19 said:


> I already, clearly explained to you that US can nuke Mecca/Medina and get away with a total war on Islam. ALL of your arguments were proven false. Maybe you need to refer to our previous discussion in this topic?


impossible... 
you do not know muslims. a muslim a very corrupt one if is provoked may do wonders which Christean crusaders or jews or any other can not think leave alone true muslims.


----------



## pakdefender

On slide 8 the Lt Col Dooley says :

This model presumes we have already failed at Phase 1  Deterrence therefore Phase 1 is not shown as part of this OP Design frame work

He is admitting that the last 10 years have been an epic FAIL for the US military and they dont have the scoobies as to what they can do from here on in since short of nukes they have tried everything and failed.

He is right that US failed but what the US did over the past 10 years was murder on a grand scale and it cannot be brushed aside as 'deterence'



gambit said:


> Then what is the big deal over this? Go and crow about it and let US talk about our...errr...'defeat'.
> 
> And am still waiting on that list of US laws that forbids any discussion about the Holocaust.



there is no big deal just that you should know that you cannot win a war against Islam


----------



## gambit

pakdefender said:


> On slide 8 the Lt Col Dooley says :
> 
> &#8220;This model presumes we have already failed at Phase 1 &#8211; Deterrence therefore Phase 1 is not shown as part of this OP Design frame work&#8217;
> 
> He is admitting that the last 10 years have been an epic FAIL for the US military and they dont have the scoobies as to what they can do from here on in since short of nukes they have tried everything and failed.
> 
> He is right they US failed but what the US did over the past 10 years was murder on a grand scale and it cannot be brushed aside as 'deterence'
> 
> 
> 
> there is no big deal just that you should know that you cannot win a war against Islam


You have taken slide 8 out of context. Shocked...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## pakdefender

gambit said:


> You have taken slide 8 out of context. Shocked...



here be more shocked and get it all in the right context

Child murderer Sgt Bales 






Uneducated US private Lyndie England of Abu Ghariab fame





Another american animal that raped and killed a 14 year old iraqi girl






Pat Tilman , killed by his own squad and the US military went own lying about his death like there was no tomorrow





The moral high ground





you are just a bunch of yahoos , nothing more , you cant win wars


----------



## gambit

pakdefender said:


> here be more shocked and get it all in the right context
> 
> you are just a bunch of yahoos , nothing more , you cant win wars


I can easily find plenty of images showing the many flaws and shortcomings of your society, anything from stoning half buried women to genital mutilations of women. But I guess we infidels have seen enough to know what lies in store for us.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Juice

Aryan_B said:


> Don't you think you are going some what off topic. Just think about it if there was a course for genocide of Jews what would happen to the guys who started the course. I mean even an inadvertent remark ends peoples careers with charges of anti anti semitism



He would be elected president of a muslim country, ask the Iranians....

To all that say, "if someone attacks the holy sites,we will do blah blah" , then you admit Jerusalem is not holy to islam, since blah blah has not happened.



pakdefender said:


> In America and in Europe no one is allowed to question the narrative of the Holocaust , debate on the number of Jews killed by the Nazis will never be allowed



I live in America, debated it before (at university), and am not in jail, care to enlighten me how it is forbidden?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

Juice said:


> .................
> 
> I live in America, debated it before (at university), and am not in jail, care to enlighten me how it is forbidden?



Isn't it amazing how people who don't know how US education works are the most adamant critics here?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zabaniyah

^In Europe only, denial of the Holocaust can send people to jail. But in America, it isn't so. Meh...do as the Romans do...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vsdoc

Aryan_B said:


> I dread to think of the effect on the planet of releasing 100 nukes. Would it be livable??



Yes very much so.

3000+ could be detonated and still not equal the energy and force released during the death of the dinausaurs.

And as we know from that, earth survived.

On the other issue of 100 nukes being used to flatten Israel (or India) - don't flatter yourselves.

Your nukes, like ours, and China's, are in component form.

You would be highly lucky (and very suicidal) to get even a few off, before the world reduces you to radioactive glass.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## anonymus

vsdoc said:


> Yes very much so.
> 
> 3000+ could be detonated and still not equal the energy and force released during the death of the dinausaurs.
> 
> And as we know from that, earth survived.
> 
> On the other issue of 100 nukes being used to flatten Israel (or India) - don't flatter yourselves.
> 
> Your nukes, like ours, and China's, are in component form.
> 
> You would be highly lucky (and very suicidal) to get even a few off, before the world reduces you to radioactive glass.



Most of the volcanic explosions carry a force of more than 3000 nukes.World would require hundreds of thousands of megaton nukes to be destroyed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vsdoc

Aryan_B said:


> Well I would assume that Pakistan has at least 200 nukes now I mean they were reported to have 100 odd years ago. Pakistan could launch nukes at Israel and would for the reason you mention want to knock some Indian capability. India would be worried about China and may launch at China. It just is not funny. Anyone up for risking all? I doubt it. In history there have always been empires which have appeared omnipotent until they are exposed not to be so



I have news for you. 

Were Pakistan to even move towards assembling its nukes, China would d be right alongside the US and Russia in nuking you pre-emptively.

India will not be nuking anybody, but like everyone else keeping a very close watch on you. And China. As they would us.

Neither Chinese nor Indian nor Pakistani nukes are warfighting arsenals. There are only two surviving warfighting arsenals - as there always were.

And Wright (or S-19?) is completely correct - you would need a minimum of 6-8 nukes (of the type and yield Pakistan has) to "flatten" a city of Tel Aviv's size. 

That means you need to first reach Tel Aviv - which is not a given per what world missile experts keeping close tabs know of your abilities.

Assuming you have the reach, your missiles woul as likely fall into the ocean as they would on fellow Muslim soil surrounding Israel.

That is, those few that have escaped one of the world's most sophisticated ABM missile defenses.

To do that, you would have to employ saturation salvos in large numbers -which is self-defeating if the idea is to flatten Tel Aviv in the first place. 

All this means, you need to fire at least 5-10 missiles in the hope of one getting through.

You have neither the requisite number of missiles. Nor equivalent conventional explosive tonnage.

What do you think the world will be doing while your silos are getting active?

Do you think in a war of the worlds scenario, they will be waiting for Launch on Impact?

The claims of Pakistanis here are simply hot-headed emotional bluster.

Anyone with a smattering of understanding would realize what they would be up against.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## vsdoc

pakdefender said:


> If the oil issue is all that simple then why aren&#8217;t the Americans stopping the purchase of oil from Muslim states and instead go to war with them?



They are thinking more longterm than you.

My kids do it all the time with anything tasty (icecream, thum up, lays, kurkure, chocolate, etc.).

All three get exactly the same portions. 

The fun (its down to a science/art form now) is in going slow initially waiting for the other to finish his or her faster and only then digging in and finishing your own with great relish and pleasure - while the others look on.

The bigger guy thinks nothing of bullying his little sister/s into getting a share of theirs - when he feels either of us are not around.

In the case of world oil - the US is me - the big boss - father of the house.

Russia is at best the mother - outclassed mainly at sea.

China is increasingly trying to become my son.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juice

vsdoc said:


> They are thinking more longterm than you.
> 
> My kids do it all the time with anything tasty (icecream, thum up, lays, kurkure, chocolate, etc.).
> 
> All three get exactly the same portions.
> 
> The fun (its down to a science/art form now) is in going slow initially waiting for the other to finish his or her faster and only then digging in and finishing your own with great relish and pleasure - while the others look on.
> 
> The bigger guy thinks nothing of bullying his little sister/s into getting a share of theirs - when he feels either of us are not around.
> 
> In the case of world oil - the US is me - the big boss - father of the house.
> 
> Russia is at best the mother - outclassed mainly at sea.
> 
> China is increasingly trying to become my son.



Lol, wanted to point this out earlier....why does the US buy oil, iron, goods from other nations while leaving much of our own un-tapped? You would think the answer would be obvious.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juice

double post....though this site was down for maintenance, still buggy if not worse for me.


----------



## LeGenD

anonymus said:


> Most of the volcanic explosions carry a force of more than 3000 nukes.World would require hundreds of thousands of megaton nukes to be destroyed.


This is BS. You cannot compare the effectiveness of natural events of limited scale with the effectiveness of major nuclear war. Physics based arguments are useless in this case.

Global nuclear war (with just 3000 nukes) can inflict tremendous environmental damage and make planet Earth unsuitable for life for a long time. Explosions do not matter.

Now check this excellent source: Nuclear Darkness | The Deadly Consequences Of Nuclear War




vsdoc said:


> And Wright (or S-19?) is completely correct - you would need a minimum of 6-8 nukes (of the type and yield Pakistan has) to "flatten" a city of Tel Aviv's size.


Their is no need to flatten Tel Aviv.

Even if a single nuke manages to detonate over Tel Aviv. It is game over for the whole city.


----------



## Juice

LeGenD said:


> This is BS. You cannot compare the effectiveness of natural events of limited scale with the destructive power of nukes in this context.
> 
> Global nuclear war (with just 3000 nukes) can inflict tremendous environmental damage and make planet Earth unsuitable for life for a long time. Explosions do not matter.
> 
> Now check this excellent source: Nuclear Darkness | The Deadly Consequences Of Nuclear War
> 
> 
> 
> Their is no need to flatten Tel Aviv.
> 
> Even if a single nuke manages to detonate over Tel Aviv. It is game over for the whole city.



You do understand the difference between fission and fussion weapons, right?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## King Solomon

LeGenD said:


> Their is no need to flatten Tel Aviv.
> 
> Even if a single nuke manages to detonate over Tel Aviv. It is game over for the whole city.



You clearly do not have any knowledge about nuclear weapons. Now go try out the FAS estimates of nuclear destruction.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vsdoc

LeGenD said:


> This is BS. You cannot compare the effectiveness of natural events of limited scale with the effectiveness of major nuclear war. Physics based arguments are useless in this case.
> 
> Global nuclear war (with just 3000 nukes) can inflict tremendous environmental damage and make planet Earth unsuitable for life for a long time. Explosions do not matter.
> 
> Now check this excellent source: Nuclear Darkness | The Deadly Consequences Of Nuclear War



I cannot argue with ignorance. You need to read up more on this.



> Their is no need to flatten Tel Aviv.
> 
> Even if a single nuke manages to detonate over Tel Aviv. It is game over for the whole city.



Do you know that nuclear targetteers factor in a minimum of *three nukes* to reliably take out hardened military targets during war gaming?

These are classically less than a tenth in size of a medium sized world city.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LeGenD

Juice said:


> You do understand the difference between fission and fussion weapons, right?


Yes, I do. Difference is between yields. Fusion paves way for thermonuclear weapons.

Regardless of this, thermonuclear weapons may be useful at wiping out gigantic cities. However, even a 'Little Boy' equivalent nuclear weapon will be sufficient to render a gigantic city useless due to its psychological implications and after-effects.



vsdoc said:


> I cannot argue with ignorance. You need to read up more on this.


Ignorance? You surely are ignorant.

Do some reading on the devastating consequences of global nuclear war. The source which I cited offers ample studies in this regard.



vsdoc said:


> Do you know that nuclear targetteers factor in a minimum of *three nukes* to reliably take out hardened military targets during war gaming?
> 
> These are classically less than a tenth in size of a medium sized world city.


Genius! Hardened military targets are a different subject. However, even hardened military targets can be destroyed by nuclear weapons. Some nuclear weapons have been specially designed for this purpose. This is where SLBM comes in to the picture.

And hardened military targets are mostly underground complexes. Cities are not hardened military targets.


----------



## vsdoc

LeGenD said:


> Regardless of this, thermonuclear weapons may be useful at wiping out gigantic cities. However, even a 'Little Boy' equivalent nuclear weapon will be sufficient to render a gigantic city useless due to its psychological implications and after-effects.



No one is arguing that IF you do manage to detonate a nuke over Tel Aviv (very big IF) you will kill a whole bunch of people.

But that is not what the discussion was about.

Psychological implications wil pale in front of what will follow very shortly after that.

To be blunt - Pakistan would already be dead.


----------



## lem34

Everyone including me is going somewhat off topic. I think that any country's military running scenarios which result in the destruction of a religion and or race is disgusting and inhumane. Replace Muslims with Jews, Hindus or your own race or religion and see outrageous genocide sounds.

Even Americans themselves realise that they have erred and have suspended the course which speaks volumes

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juice

While Hiroshima suffered greatly, it was susceptible to fire-bombing (military planning no longer considers fire-bombing effective, not only for moral reasons, modern construction makes it less effective). Fission weapons ARE terrible, but not as much as is in the popular imagination. It is a large amount of fussion weapons that can have the effect you see in the anti-nuke web-sites. To help you understand, imagine if the megabytes of RAM you have were reduced to kilobytes, does that help?

(you are right about the disruption tho, city life would come to an end for a while, but most would live, and be helped by civil defense, and be VERY mad)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lem34

Juice said:


> While Hiroshima suffered greatly, it was susceptible to fire-bombing (military planning no longer considers fire-bombing effective, not only for moral reasons, modern construction makes it less effective). Fission weapons ARE terrible, but not as much as is in the popular imagination. It is a large amount of fussion weapons that can have the effect you see in the anti-nuke web-sites. To help you understand, imagine if the megabytes of RAM you have were reduced to kilobytes, does that help?



Guys would we even want to find out what would happen in these scenarios. I would be mortified if 1 nuke went off anywhere

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Juice

Me too, good morning Aryan_B

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## anonymus

LeGenD said:


> This is BS. You cannot compare the effectiveness of natural events of limited scale with the effectiveness of major nuclear war. Physics based arguments are useless in this case.
> 
> Global nuclear war (with just 3000 nukes) can inflict tremendous environmental damage and make planet Earth unsuitable for life for a long time. Explosions do not matter.
> 
> Now check this excellent source: Nuclear Darkness | The Deadly Consequences Of Nuclear War



Nuclear darkness is nothing but 20% fact with 80% fearmongering.

1883 explosion of Krakatoa was equivalent of 200MT ie nearly 100 thermonuclear or 5000 fission bombs going off simultaneously going off.

The world did not ended that day and it probably would not end in case of an all out nuclear war.

Krakatoa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



LeGenD said:


> Regardless of this, thermonuclear weapons may be useful at wiping out gigantic cities. However, even a 'Little Boy' equivalent nuclear weapon will be sufficient to render a gigantic city useless due to its psychological implications and after-effects.



Probably Israel is best placed to deal with Psychological effects.Their compulsory military conscription,regular bombing by Hamas and tales of genocide must have resulted in systematic desensitisation.



LeGenD said:


> This is where SLBM comes in to the picture.



How come.....

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## vsdoc

LeGenD said:


> Ignorance? You surely are ignorant.
> 
> Do some reading on the devastating consequences of global nuclear war. The source which I cited offers ample studies in this regard.



S19 suggested a source. I could help you out with more. Strategic and military. Read up please. You sound like an amateur with a nuclear hardon (something I myself have been accused of elsewhere some time ago).



> Genius! Hardened military targets are a different subject. However, even hardened military targets can be destroyed by nuclear weapons. Some nuclear weapons have been specially designed for this purpose. This is where SLBM comes in to the picture.
> 
> And hardened military targets are mostly underground complexes. Cities are not hardened military targets.



Cities are a whole lot bigger. And the population spread out comparative to military hardware.

To be really miltarily objective, any nuclear targetteer will go after first the enemies miltary capabilities and gardware than waste nukes on a few million civilians.

Not to mention that such targetteers can only realistically (something you need an introduction to) afford to be from two nuclear warfighting nations.

Anywhere else, and they risk instant retaliatory nukes killing their own nation.

Think logically. Mecca and Medina are nuked.

What do you do?

Nuke Tel Aviv.

Say you manage to do that.

Then what?

Islam has played its hand. 

And now 200 million muslims more are radioactive dust.

How brilliant is that GENIUS?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## lem34

Juice said:


> Me too good morning Aryan_B



Morning mate. The suns out but still too cold here in the UK. I think I need to have a holiday in warmer climes.



vsdoc said:


> S19 suggested a source. I could help you out with more. Strategic and military. Read up please. You sound like an amateur with a nuclear hardon (something I myself have been accused of elsewhere some time ago).
> 
> 
> 
> Cities are a whole lot bigger. And the population spread out comparative to military hardware.
> 
> To be really miltarily objective, any nuclear targetteer will go after first the enemies miltary capabilities and gardware than waste nukes on a few million civilians.
> 
> Not to mention that such targetteers can only realistically (something you need an introduction to) afford to be from two nuclear warfighting nations.
> 
> Anywhere else, and they risk instant retaliatory nukes killing their own nation.
> 
> Think logically. Mecca and Medina are nuked.
> 
> What do you do?
> 
> Nuke Tel Aviv.
> 
> Say you manage to do that.
> 
> Then what?
> 
> Islam has played its hand.
> 
> And now 200 million muslims more are radioactive dust.
> 
> How brilliant is that GENIUS?



Mate there are two many variables to predict anything with any certainty. In a war with nukes I would not even want to be on the winning side is all I can say.

What are you suggesting here that because in your opinion Muslims are defenseless that its ok to run these scenarios committing genocide??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## anonymus

Aryan_B said:


> Morning mate. The suns out but still too cold here in the UK. I think I need to have a holiday in warmer climes.
> 
> 
> 
> Mate there re two many variables to predict anything with any certainty. In a war with nukes I would not even want to be on the winning side is all I can say



this year summer seems to be milder in subcontinent....

there is overcast skies every alternate day in this part....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LeGenD

vsdoc said:


> No one is arguing that IF you do manage to detonate a nuke over Tel Aviv (very big IF) you will kill a whole bunch of people.
> 
> But that is not what the discussion was about.
> 
> Psychological implications wil pale in front of what will follow very shortly after that.
> 
> To be blunt - Pakistan would already be dead.


I do not deny this.

However, it is important to focus on the big picture. Nuclear strikes on Pakistan would certainly destroy the country but they will also indirectly damage neighbouring countries.

USA war-gamed a very limited scale nuclear strike on Iran involving a single thermonuclear weapon. According to the results, military objective was accomplished but the fallout on neighbouring countries was the real concern. And I am talking about just a single thermonuclear weapon.

Here;

_For example, the new nuclear earth penetrator that the United States plans to research would use a 1.2-megaton weapon. According to a simulation using software developed for the Pentagon, if one of these weapons were used against the underground nuclear facility in Esfahan, Iran, 3 million people would be killed by radiation within 2 weeks of the explosion, and 35 million people in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India would be exposed to increased levels of cancer-causing radiation._

While you can decide the fate of a nation, you cannot control nuclear fallout. Simple.



anonymus said:


> Nuclear darkness is nothing but 20% fact with 80% fearmongering.
> 
> 1883 explosion of Krakatoa was equivalent of 200MT ie nearly 100 thermonuclear or 5000 fission bombs going off simultaneously going off.
> 
> The world did not ended that day and it probably would not end in case of an all out nuclear war.
> 
> Krakatoa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Perhaps this study is fear-mongering too:

A nuclear clash could starve the world - CNN.com

People should learn to differentiate between the devastating consequences of global nuclear conflict and natural events of limited scale.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juice

Aryan_B said:


> Morning mate. The suns out but still too cold here in the UK. I think I need to have a holiday in warmer climes.
> 
> 
> 
> Mate there are two many variables to predict anything with any certainty. In a war with nukes I would not even want to be on the winning side is all I can say.
> 
> What are you suggesting here that because in your opinion Muslims are defenseless that its ok to run these scenarios committing genocide??



It gets ridiculously hot here in Texas, drop by (ps....Mexican girls are HOT)

You know darn well that any nation with a sizeable military games for every possibility, don't pretend you don't.


----------



## lem34

anonymus said:


> this year summer seems to be milder in subcontinent....
> 
> there is overcast skies every alternate day in this part....



Four years ago I imported several hundred AC's into UK from China. lol. Since then we have not had a good summer. I got rid of them and sold them to someone last week and they are on the way to Dubai as we speak. Sods law we will now see a good summer. lol

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## anonymus

Aryan_B said:


> Morning mate. The suns out but still too cold here in the UK. I think I need to have a holiday in warmer climes.
> 
> 
> 
> Mate there are two many variables to predict anything with any certainty. In a war with nukes I would not even want to be on the winning side is all I can say.
> 
> What are you suggesting here that because in your opinion Muslims are defenseless that its ok to run these scenarios committing genocide??



A Global nuclear war would bring great devastation probably 2-300million dead but the most horrifying consequences of nuclear war as portrayed by activists would not come to pass.

Continental size countries would simply get up,dust off their shirts and get on with life.Nuclear war would result in a decade or two of progress lost.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lem34

Juice said:


> It gets ridiculously hot here in Texas, drop by (ps....Mexican girls are HOT)



I do like the South American look. But if Mrs B sees me discussing women here on the forum I will soon get my head kicked in.

Anyway back to topic it is ridiculous that any nation can consider such scenarios. We need to spend less money in the current economic climate on masturbating war scenarios and destroying whole races and religions in wars



anonymus said:


> A Global nuclear war would bring great devastation probably 2-300million dead but the most horrifying consequences of nuclear war as portrayed by activists would not come to pass.
> 
> Continental size countries would simply get up,dust off their shirts and get on with life.Nuclear war would result in a decade or two of progress lost.



Mate 200 300 million dead?? You mean that is not bad enough??

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## vsdoc

Aryan_B said:


> Mate there re two many variables to predict anything with any certainty. In a war with nukes I would not even want to be on the winning side is all I can say



I agree. 

But me, and Juice, and S19, and others here who are trying to dissect and war game dispassionately (as oppose to the "for our religion we will nuke you even if we all die" types) are simply saying that IF this were to be a crusade against Islam as a whole as if being made out to be as a result of a text book war gaming exercise, then quite simply and unambiguously, Islam will lose. With huge losses. With the potential of very little if any losses to the other side in retaliation.

That is the military truth.

And the US could do it on its own. Just 300 million of them against the 1.6 billion muslims. Again, IF it came down to it.

Hell, you wouldn't even need Russia. 

The UK or France could equally well do it push come to shove time.

All that would be needed was for the other "Christian" and non-Abrahamic nuclear powers to stand quietly to the side.

The only checks and balances in the real world, from the Cold War era to today, have been the dynamics of balance of power and the impossibility of unilateral strikes without neessary consensus between the big two.

Take that out of the equation, and it is ridiculously easy to commit genocide on the level of wiping out a sub-species - on a scale of the dinausaurs.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## anonymus

LeGenD said:


> I do not deny this.
> 
> However, it is important to focus on the big picture. Nuclear strikes on Pakistan would certainly destroy the country but they will also indirectly damage neighbouring countries.
> 
> USA war-gamed a very limited scale nuclear strike on Iran involving a single thermonuclear weapon. According to the results, military objective was accomplished but the fallout on neighbouring countries was the real concern. And I am talking about just a single thermonuclear weapon.
> 
> Here;
> 
> _For example, the new nuclear earth penetrator that the United States plans to research would use a 1.2-megaton weapon. According to a simulation using software developed for the Pentagon, if one of these weapons were used against the underground nuclear facility in Esfahan, Iran, 3 million people would be killed by radiation within 2 weeks of the explosion, and 35 million people in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India would be exposed to increased levels of cancer-causing radiation._
> 
> While you can decide the fate of a nation, you cannot control nuclear fallout. Simple.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this study is fear-mongering too:
> 
> A nuclear clash could starve the world - CNN.com
> 
> People should learn to differentiate between the devastating consequences of global nuclear conflict and natural events of limited scale.



The scale of those natural event which you are dismissing as limited has been of same scale as that of global nuclear war.

The theories of Global famine,Global winter and Ozone depletion is a handiwork of activist whose aim is to spook people rather than have a constructive debate.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lem34

Juice said:


> You know darn well that any nation with a sizeable military games for every possibility, don't pretend you don't.



Listen mate I love playing risk diplomacy axis and allies and other board games etc but we sign blue team and red teams etc not bleeding Muslims and Jews destroyed by a dice throw.

Anyway Juice I am off to the office, be there in 15 minutes but have some work for an hour or so. If you not on when I get back have a good evening. Take care

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## King Solomon

Aryan_B said:


> Anyway back to topic it is ridiculous that any nation can consider such scenarios. We need to spend less money in the current economic climate on masturbating war scenarios and destroying whole races and religions in wars



Ah we are definitely not doing that. All we were discussing is some members like pakdefender challenged that US cannot win war against islam by nuking mecca/medina about 10 pages ago. I disproved all his arguments and later the topic diverted about nuking tel aviv. Yet, his points were disproved because flattening tel aviv from a military point of view would require at least 10 nukes of the calibre pakistan has. So, the conclusion is pakistan's nukes are a *deterrent* but definitely not a tool.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## anonymus

Aryan_B said:


> I do like the South American look. But if Mrs B sees me discussing women here on the forum I will soon get my head kicked in.
> 
> Anyway back to topic it is ridiculous that any nation can consider such scenarios. We need to spend less money in the current economic climate on masturbating war scenarios and destroying whole races and religions in wars
> 
> 
> 
> Mate 200 300 million dead?? You mean that is not bad enough??



If you separate emotions from calculation 300 million is not even 1% of total population.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LeGenD

Juice said:


> While Hiroshima suffered greatly, it was susceptible to fire-bombing (military planning no longer considers fire-bombing effective, not only for moral reasons, modern construction makes it less effective). Fission weapons ARE terrible, but not as much as is in the popular imagination. It is a large amount of fussion weapons that can have the effect you see in the anti-nuke web-sites. To help you understand, imagine if the megabytes of RAM you have were reduced to kilobytes, does that help?
> 
> (you are right about the disruption tho, city life would come to an end for a while, but most would live, and be helped by civil defense, and be VERY mad)


You need to understand the difference between WWII era and modern age societal dynamics.

Let us consider the case of New York City. It is an enormous economic hub. A single nuclear attack on Manhattan alone will seize the entire economic activity of the city. Survivors will be rushing out of the city to avoid getting effected by radioactivity. Imagine the damage this will do to US economy. Rebuilding will be EXTREMELY expensive and a lengthy process. Just look at the cost of World Trade Center. Get the picture?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vsdoc

Aryan_B said:


> What are you suggesting here that because in your opinion Muslims are defenseless that its ok to run these scenarios committing genocide??



I have not gotten into the morals or ethics of this discussion from the start of the thread man. I am sure you would have noticed that. So suggesting as much is unfair.

Personally, I've already stated what I believe to be true about the West and Islam. No right or wrong about it. Its there. And I am an uninterested party at best.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## anonymus

LeGenD said:


> You need to understand the difference between WWII era and modern age societal dynamics.
> 
> Let us consider the case of New York City. It is an enormous economic hub. A single nuclear attack on Manhattan alone will seize the entire economic activity of the city. Survivors will be rushing out of the city to avoid getting effected by radioactivity. Imagine the damage this will do to US economy. Rebuilding will be EXTREMELY expensive and a lengthy process. Just look at the cost of World Trade Center. Get the picture?



Man,

no one is arguing about fact that nuclear war would be disruptive.I am only arguing against the global Armageddon scenarios painted by activists.For those to come to fruitition,at lest 5000 MT of nukes have to go off simultaneously.

The social effect would be devastating and countries may have to apply martial law to deal with it but nothing that can't be remade.Wall street can operate from a straw hut also rather than fancy offices if things come to such a pass.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LeGenD

anonymus said:


> The scale of those natural event which you are dismissing as limited has been of same scale as that of global nuclear war.
> 
> The theories of Global famine,Global winter and Ozone depletion is a handiwork of activist whose aim is to spook people rather than have a constructive debate.


No, genius! It isn't the same thing.

Here is an analogy; a powerful earthquake struck Northern regions of Pakistan in 2005, exterminating 70,000 and displacing millions.

In comparison, if 100 nukes hit Pakistan in various regions, they will end Pakistani society and make many parts of the country inhabitable. See the difference?


----------



## vsdoc

S-19 said:


> Ah we are definitely not doing that. All we were discussing is some members like pakdefender challenged that US cannot win war against islam by nuking mecca/medina about 10 pages ago. I disproved all his arguments and later the topic diverted about nuking tel aviv. Yet, his points were disproved because flattening tel aviv from a military point of view would require at least 10 nukes of the calibre pakistan has. So, the conclusion is pakistan's nukes are a *deterrent* but definitely not a tool.



Bottom line. Thanks for summing up bro.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## anonymus

LeGenD said:


> No, genius! It isn't the same thing.
> 
> Here is an analogy; a powerful earthquake struck Northern regions of Pakistan in 2005, exterminating 70,000 and displacing millions.
> 
> In comparison, if 100 nukes hit Pakistan in various regions, they will end Pakistani society and make many parts of the country inhabitable. See the difference?



I based my arguments on volcanic explosions which throw massive amount of debris in atmosphere thus mimicking nuclear weapons.

If 100Nukes hit PAK in middle of war,it would lead to death of millions of people and probably social breakdown but people who are dead would only be a small fraction of total population and pakistan could be rebuilt.

PS:Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not became permanently uninhabitable.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LeGenD

anonymus said:


> Man,
> 
> no one is arguing about fact that nuclear war would be disruptive.I am only arguing against the global Armageddon scenarios painted by activists.For those to come to fruitition,at lest 5000 MT of nukes have to go off simultaneously.
> 
> The social effect would be devastating and countries may have to apply martial law to deal with it but nothing that can't be remade.Wall street can operate from a straw hut also rather than fancy offices if things come to such a pass.


Here;

Nuclear war could reverse global warming, NASA says

We are not discussing Hollywood based projections here! Genius! 

In the Terminator movie, humans could easily move around in nuked places. However, in real life, radioactive fallout will kill humans in nuked places.



anonymus said:


> I based my arguments on volcanic explosions which throw massive amount of debris in atmosphere thus mimicking nuclear weapons.
> 
> If 100Nukes hit PAK in middle of war,it would lead to death of millions of people and probably social breakdown but people who are dead would only be a small fraction of total population and pakistan could be rebuilt.
> 
> PS:Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not became permanently inhabitable.


You are extremely clueless in this regard. You have no idea about the after-effects of nuclear warfare This isn't anything like a conventional conflict.

Do some research on effects of EMP, Radioactive Fallout, and Climatic Changes occurring after the nuclear strikes.

Volcanic eruptions are insufficient analogies.



anonymus said:


> PS:Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not became permanently inhabitable.


They were just two weapons and Hiroshima and Nagasaki are small cities. Societal dynamics are lot more different in modern times then they were during WWII.



vsdoc said:


> Bottom line. Thanks for summing up bro.


I don't think that member *S-19* qualifies to determine effectiveness of Pakistani nukes. They have effectively deterred India. Israel is very small in comparison. Focus on the research on NASA scientists instead.


----------



## anonymus

LeGenD said:


> Here;
> 
> Nuclear war could reverse global warming, NASA says
> 
> We are not discussing Hollywood projections here! Genius!



2.5[SUP]o[/SUP]C for 3 years.Hardly a world destroying effect...

It would only result in parts of areas of Saskatchewan growing winter wheat to adapt to spring wheat.

FYI..Wheat could tolerate -8[SUP]o[/SUP]C temperature



LeGenD said:


> Do some research on roles of EMP, Radioactivity, and Climatic changes.



I know fully well what EMP,Radioactivity and Climate change means.

EMP would result in destruction of unshielded electronics of cities they fall on,Radioactivity depends on type of weapon and is exaggerated.

But it is climate change argument given by activists which is a joke.Events equivalent to a nuclear war occur in nature on annual basis.Climate would not differentiate the debris ejceted in atmosphere by a volcanic explosion and one by nuclear explosion.

If volcanic explosion of the magnitude of projected nuclear war have been unable to have significant effect on atmosphere,the impact of nukes on climate change is doubtful.



LeGenD said:


> In the Terminator movie, humans could easily move around in nuked places. However, in real life, radioactive fallout will kill humans in nuked places.



I am not a fan of Sci-fi movies.My views is based on the fact that life is thriving in Chernobyl and Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


PS:Most of the Armageddon models are based on the assumption that all the nukes would be simultaneously exploded in most favourable condition (Dry sunny day with still wind conditions and in air burst mode) and all other climatic factors required will be favourable to the model and after it is done they taking the worst projection in consideration.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LeGenD

anonymus said:


> 2.5[SUP]o[/SUP]C for 3 years.Hardly a world destroying effect...
> 
> It would only result in parts of areas of Saskatchewan growing winter wheat to adapt to spring wheat.
> 
> FYI..Wheat could tolerate -8[SUP]o[/SUP]C temperature


I am not claiming that '100 Hiroshima-level bombs' can destroy the whole world. They just represent *0.03 percent* of the world's combined nuclear arsenal. But they will certainly leave a noticeable impact; the scientific study makes this clear. In comparison, try to imagine the devastating effects of global nuclear war involving thousands of nuclear weapons.



anonymus said:


> I know fully well what EMP,Radioactivity and Climate change means.
> 
> EMP would result in destruction of unshielded electronics of cities they fall on,Radioactivity depends on type of weapon and is exaggerated.
> 
> But it is climate change argument given by activists which is a joke.Events equivalent to a nuclear war occur in nature on annual basis.Climate would not differentiate the debris ejceted in atmosphere by a volcanic explosion and one by nuclear explosion.
> 
> If volcanic explosion of the magnitude of projected nuclear war have been unable to have significant effect on atmosphere,the impact of nukes on climate change is doubtful.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a fan of Sci-fi movies.My views is based on the fact that life is thriving in Chernobyl and Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


You certainly are clueless.

Genius! You cannot compare the devastation of global nuclear war (involving thousands of nuclear weapons) to minor incidents like Chernobyl, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. 

And by the way, Chernobyl is still a GHOST TOWN.

This study should enlighten you:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.1477-8696.1984.tb06793.x/abstract




anonymus said:


> Man,
> 
> no one is arguing about fact that nuclear war would be disruptive.I am only arguing against the global Armageddon scenarios painted by activists.For those to come to fruitition,at lest 5000 MT of nukes have to go off simultaneously.


No! 1000 MT of nukes will be comparably devastating.



anonymus said:


> The social effect would be devastating and countries may have to apply martial law to deal with it but nothing that can't be remade.Wall street can operate from a straw hut also rather than fancy offices if things come to such a pass.


In case of a global nuclear war, societies will seize to exist worldwide. It will be total chaos. Large parts of the world will be inhabitable due to immense radioactive fallout. Survivors will face extremely harsh climatic conditions and will run out of food and other necessaries in some months. Humans along with many other life forms will perish within year or two at most. Rebuilding is out of question.


----------



## anonymus

LeGenD said:


> And by the way, Chernobyl is still a GHOST TOWN.
> 
> This study should enlighten you:
> 
> CLIMATIC CHANGE INDUCED BY A LARGE-SCALE NUCLEAR EXCHANGE - Elsom - 2012 - Weather - Wiley Online Library



Chernobyl has thriving wildlife.It could support human habitation if required to.

The link you have provided is for a nuclear war that results in explosion of 5000-10000MT of nuclear bombs.It could have been possible in 1970 when combined capacity of world's arsenal was close to 200000MT (Soviet 70000 and US with 50000 nukes).Total the total amount of active nukes in world is close to 5000 with a lot of nukes with Russia being tactical one.The scenario is product of fantasy for today's world.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LeGenD

anonymus said:


> Chernobyl has thriving wildlife.It could support human habitation if required to.


Give this advice to Russia. And Chernobyl holds no candle to devastation caused by global nuclear war. It is not even a comparison.



anonymus said:


> The link you have provided is for a nuclear war that results in explosion of 5000-10000MT of nuclear bombs.It could have been possible in 1970 when combined capacity of world's arsenal was close to 200000MT (Soviet 70000 and US with 50000 nukes).Total the total amount of active nukes in world is close to 5000 with a lot of nukes with Russia being tactical one.The scenario is product of fantasy for today's world.


You do not check the sources properly. This is your greatest mistake.

This;

_Even a 'limited' nuclear exchange, say a 1000 MT scenario which includes attacks on cities producing mass fires and generating thick smoke palls, has been suggested likely to lead to similar effects on the continental climates of the northern hemisphere._

Russia alone possesses around 1300 MT of nuclear arsenal currently. 

And the nuclear arsenal of 1970s was sufficient to destroy the world many times over. Not just once. What are smoking?


----------



## vsdoc

LeGenD said:


> I don't think that member *S-19* qualifies to determine effectiveness of Pakistani nukes. They have effectively deterred India. Israel is very small in comparison. Focus on the research on NASA scientists instead.



The eyes read, but the mind sees what it wants to.

S-19 said nothing of the sort. Neither are any of us.

You yourself have spelled out the limit of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

Namely, deterrence against India.

Fullstop.

Please leave the pre-emptive retaliatory bombing of Israel to the domain it belongs to.

Juvenile chest thumping.

A threat without the means lacks credibility.

It also makes others acutely aware of your own vulnerability.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## anonymus

LeGenD said:


> Give this advice to Russia. And Chernobyl holds no candle to devastation caused by global nuclear war. It is not even a comparison.
> 
> 
> You do not check the sources properly. This is your greatest mistake.
> 
> This;
> 
> _Even a 'limited' nuclear exchange, say a 1000 MT scenario which includes attacks on cities producing mass fires and generating thick smoke palls, has been suggested likely to lead to similar effects on the continental climates of the northern hemisphere._
> 
> Russia alone possesses around 1300 MT of nuclear arsenal currently. What are smoking?



I could not copy the whole source,Don't know why copy paste in not working..........

If you read that document,it provides the name of scientists and model which have been used to simulate 10000MT nuclear weapons.

While in case of 1000MT nuclear weapon,it uses just a footnote with no mentioning of scientists and models.Its effect had only been *"suggested"*.




LeGenD said:


> And the nuclear arsenal of 1970s was sufficient to destroy the world many times over. Not just once. What are smoking?



I am not arguing against 100000+ nuclear weapons.


----------



## LeGenD

vsdoc said:


> The eyes read, but the mind sees what it wants to.
> 
> S-19 said nothing of the sort. Neither are any of us.
> 
> You yourself have spelled out the limit of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
> 
> Namely, deterrence against India.
> 
> Fullstop.
> 
> Please leave the pre-emptive retaliatory bombing of Israel to the domain it belongs to.
> 
> Juvenile chest thumping.
> 
> A threat without the means lacks credibility.
> 
> It also makes others acutely aware of your own vulnerability.


My point is not about consequences. It is about the effectiveness of the nuclear arsenal.

If some members think that Pakistani nukes are just deterrents and not tools; they are only fooling themselves. Nukes are _tools_ of destruction and this is why they have powerful deterrent effect.



anonymus said:


> I could not copy the whole source,Don't know why copy paste in not working..........
> 
> If you read that document,it provides the name of scientists and model which have been used to simulate 10000MT nuclear weapons.
> 
> While in case of 1000MT nuclear weapon,it uses just a footnote with no mentioning of scientists and models.Its effect had only been *"suggested"*.


You have the whole paper?

Extrapolations and Interpolations are made on the basis of computerized simulations. You think that scientists would actually fire thousands of nuclear warheads on the world under the banner of 'experiment' to confirm their theories? They can get reasonable idea from computerized simulations.


----------



## King Solomon

vsdoc said:


> The eyes read, but the mind sees what it wants to.
> 
> S-19 said nothing of the sort. Neither are any of us.
> 
> You yourself have spelled out the limit of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
> 
> Namely, deterrence against India.
> 
> Fullstop.
> 
> Please leave the pre-emptive retaliatory bombing of Israel to the domain it belongs to.
> 
> Juvenile chest thumping.
> 
> A threat without the means lacks credibility.
> 
> It also makes others acutely aware of your own vulnerability.



Well, that is a fact. In the event that pakistan even *prepares* to run the LeGenDary fantasy scenario of pre-emptive strikes on tel aviv, US, Russia (maybe even China) would vaporize pakistan by a preemptive nuclear strike.

I guess he is not aware of the nuclear doctrines of major powers and arguing based on juvenile ignorance.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## vsdoc

LeGenD said:


> My point is not about consequences. It is about the effectiveness of the nuclear arsenal.
> 
> If some members think that Pakistani nukes are just deterrents and not tools; they are only fooling themselves. Nukes are tools of destruction and this is why they have powerful deterrent effect.



Bro, your statement shows your lack of grasp on the concept of deterrence.

When you re-emptively strike Israel you are neither deterring anyone, nor nuclear warfighting. You are simply commiting national suicide.

Nukes for deterrent arsenals were NEVER designed to be used. Because it was well UNDERSTOOD that the day you used one (whether first or second in your particular case), you hade ALREADY LOST!

Thus, nukes for you or me or China are not TOOLS.

Their deterrence lies firmly in the 

1) Knowledge of their CONSEQUENCES (historical archives and scientific/mathematical modeling)

2) The PROOF that they work (your tests and the data gathered by the world scientific nuclear/seismic/radioactive watchers)

3) The ABILITY to deliver (once again, your tests, and public unambiguous demonstration of capability thereof)

These are what maintains the balance.

Not you going ahead and trying to kill a few million Israelis because and IF your holy cities were razed.

Were that to happen, you would have needed to have developed and DEMONSTRATED the means of hitting back remotely to ensure your SURVIVAL.

Forget RETALIATION.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LeGenD

S-19 said:


> Well, that is a fact. In the event that pakistan even *prepares* to run the fantasy scenario of pre-emptive strikes on tel aviv, US, Russia (maybe even China) would vaporize pakistan by a preemptive nuclear strike.
> 
> I guess he is not aware of the nuclear doctrines of major powers.


My debate is about devastating effects of nuclear war. It is not about nuclear doctrines.

Nuclear strikes on Israel will not just destroy Israel but will damage its neighbours. Similarly, nuclear strikes on Pakistan will not just destroy Pakistan but will damage its neighbours.

Like I said, you can decide the fate of nations but you cannot control the nuclear fallout.


----------



## LeGenD

vsdoc said:


> Bro, your statement shows your lack of grasp on the concept of deterrence.


I do understand the concept of deterrence.



vsdoc said:


> When you re-emptively strike Israel you are neither deterring anyone, nor nuclear warfighting. You are simply commiting national suicide.


The purpose of nuclear weapons is to prevent 'devastating war' or 'crossing the red line' in the first place.



vsdoc said:


> Nukes for deterrent arsenals were NEVER designed to be used. Because it was well UNDERSTOOD that the day you used one (whether first or second in your particular case), you hade ALREADY LOST!


Agreed! Therefore, the deterrence. 



vsdoc said:


> Thus, nukes for you or me or China are not TOOLS.


Disagreed. Hint: tactical nukes

Here; Pakistan builds low yield nuclear capability | DAWN.COM



vsdoc said:


> Their deterrence lies firmly in the
> 
> 1) Knowledge of their CONSEQUENCES (historical archives and scientific/mathematical modeling)


Agreed!



vsdoc said:


> 2) The PROOF that they work (your tests and the data gathered by the world scientific nuclear/seismic/radioactive watchers)


Oh! Pakistani nukes DO WORK.



vsdoc said:


> 3) The ABILITY to deliver (once again, your tests, and public unambiguous demonstration of capability thereof)


Yes! Pakistan does have reasonable delivery systems.



vsdoc said:


> These are what maintains the balance.


Yes



vsdoc said:


> Not you going ahead and trying to kill a few million Israelis because and IF your holy cities were razed.
> 
> Were that to happen, you would have needed to have developed and DEMONSTRATED the means of hitting back remotely to ensure your SURVIVAL.
> 
> Forget RETALIATION.


Point is that attack on holy cities will open the Pandora box. You being an Indian will not understand this.

Attacking holy cities will be 'crossing the red line' of tolerance of all Muslims worldwide. Their is no justification for this kind of action.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Developereo

gambit said:


> Are you telling me that military academies in Pakistan have nothing similar?



Depends what you mean by 'similar'. I accept that all militaries plan reasonable contingencies, so what do I mean by reasonable?

Declaring war on a country is reasonable.
Declaring war on an organized group of criminals (drug dealers, terrorists, etc.) is reasonable.
Declaring war on a race is *NOT* reasonable.
Declaring war on a religion is *NOT* reasonable.



gambit said:


> So how does defending academic freedom turn to associating Al-Qaeda's ideology to that of 'mainstream' muslims'?



Lt. Dooley is making the jump in his premise, and you are defending his intellectual dishonesty by invoking freedom of speech. It is certainly freedom of speech in the same way as Hitler/Stalin/OBL's speeches were freedom of speech. Anyone can 'justify' their ideology by making ridiculous extrapolations and generalizations.



gambit said:


> No need to present any new arguments when the current criticism about Dooley is proving to be problematic for you.



Uh huh.



gambit said:


> Not too long ago, it was absurd for dedicated muslims to attack Americans on US soil, even after the WTC towers had a failed underground parking garage bomb, it was still absurd and quite hypothetical.



What on earth is a 'dedicated' Muslim? Just because some criminal uses that label to describe themselves makes it valid to reverse-extrapolate that blame to all Muslims?

If a self-proclaimed 'black panther' or a 'dedicated' Jew commits a crime, shall we then conclude that all blacks and Jews are automatically criminals?



gambit said:


> Did he? The removal of his 'course', if we are to be generous and call it that, was not because of its intellectual absurdity but because of its social and political sensitivity, as in we are bending over backwards to accommodate overly sensitive muslims sensibilities. No one in the muslim world give a damn about Christian and Jewish sensitivities.



Duh! No one here is questioning the intellectual content of the course. The whole objection is about the social presumptions underlying the premise for the course.

Once again, reasonable people do not declare war on races or religions; people who do so are called fanatical extremists.

Reasonable people do not willingly suspend Geneva Convention rules and deliberately target civilian centers with weapons of mass destruction; people who do so are called fanatical extremists.

The JFSC course fails the test of reasonableness on both counts.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## King Solomon

Developereo said:


> Depends what you mean by 'similar'. I accept that all militaries plan reasonable contingencies, so what do I mean by reasonable?
> 
> Declaring war on a country is reasonable.
> Declaring war on an organized group of criminals (drug dealers, terrorists, etc.) is reasonable.
> Declaring war on a race is *NOT* reasonable.
> Declaring war on a religion is *NOT* reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Lt. Dooley is making the jump in his premise, and you are defending his intellectual dishonesty by invoking freedom of speech. It is certainly freedom of speech in the same way as Hitler/Stalin/OBL's speeches were freedom of speech. Anyone can 'justify' their ideology by making ridiculous extrapolations and generalizations.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh.
> 
> 
> 
> What on earth is a 'dedicated' Muslim? Just because some criminal uses that label to describe themselves makes it valid to reverse-extrapolate that blame to all Muslims?
> 
> If a self-proclaimed 'black panther' or a 'dedicated' Jew commits a crime, shall we then conclude that all blacks and Jews are automatically criminals?
> 
> 
> 
> Duh! No one here is questioning the intellectual content of the course. The whole objection is about the social presumptions underlying the premise for the course.
> 
> Once again, reasonable people do not declare war on races or religions; people who do so are called fanatical extremists.
> 
> Reasonable people do not willingly suspend Geneva Convention rules and deliberately target civilian centers with weapons of mass destruction; people who do so are called fanatical extremists.
> 
> The JFSC course fails the test of reasonableness on both counts.



Note: The keyword here is that this is a* "Model" or a simulation of an imaginary scenario.* Based on several conditions and hypothetical arguments.


----------



## vsdoc

LeGenD said:


> I do understand the concept of deterrence.
> 
> 
> The purpose of nuclear weapons is to prevent 'devastating war' or 'crossing the red line' in the first place.
> 
> 
> Agreed! Therefore, the deterrence.
> 
> 
> Disagreed. Hint: tactical nukes
> 
> Here; Pakistan builds low yield nuclear capability | DAWN.COM
> 
> 
> Agreed!
> 
> 
> Oh! Pakistani nukes DO WORK.
> 
> 
> Yes! Pakistan does have reasonable delivery systems.
> 
> 
> Yes
> 
> 
> Point is that attack on holy cities will open the Pandora box. You being an Indian will not understand this.
> 
> Attacking holy cities will be 'crossing the red line' of tolerance of all Muslims worldwide. Their is no justification for this kind of action.



My friend, civilizational (for you as a people and a nation; and not in the broader context of humanity yet in the scenario being discussed) survival is not based on EMOTION or RELIGIOUS SENTIMENT.

Nor may I propose is it based on a poorly concealed patently transparent BLUFF.

May I also propose that BOTH your red-lines - vis-a-vis you TAC NUKES as well as wildly flailing out against perceived civilizational/traditional religious adversary nations (Israel, India), are too miltarily, strategically, and politically SHALLOW to be taken seriously by anyone.

It has been debated threadbare that were the Rubicon to be crossed, and Indian column/s be advancing and ingressing into Pakistani soil, a tactical nuke short of (or on) the advancing column is not going to be in any way advantageous to you.

You in effect have played your hand.

And it is then not only Indian nukes that would be raining down on you.

Please remember that the only sides that truly deployed tactical nukes (and that was like 30-40 years ago - nuclear doctrine and weapon tehnology, especialy conventional, has come a long way since then) were those that were fully willing and able to fight a nuclear war.

Nuclear war fighting is not equal to nuclear national suicide.

Nuclear war fighting has the doctrine to back it up.

Nuclear war fighting has the capability to back it up.

You have none of the above.

What you do have is a very short religious fuse and a pathologically overpowering need to bluff.

Even when you know that the world can see through it.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Developereo

S-19 said:


> Note: The keyword here is that this is a* "Model" or a simulation of an imaginary scenario.* Based on several conditions and hypothetical arguments.



How about you show me an imaginary scenario at JFSC to nuke Bogota or Sao Paolo to fight the drug war.

Or an imaginary scenario at JFSC to nuke Kinshasa or Capetown to fight Somali pirates.

I am still waiting.

Hint: You will not find one. *Ever.* And once you understand why you will never find such a scenario being taught at JFSC, you will understand why we are objecting to this course.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Developereo said:


> Depends what you mean by 'similar'. I accept that all militaries plan reasonable contingencies, so what do I mean by reasonable?
> 
> Declaring war on a country is reasonable.
> Declaring war on an organized group of criminals (drug dealers, terrorists, etc.) is reasonable.
> Declaring war on a race is *NOT* reasonable.
> Declaring war on a religion is *NOT* reasonable.


Only religions can declare war on religions. Only races can declare war on races. You obviously have not read Dooley's entire presentation to know what he was talking about. But then again, the muslim victimhood mentality clearly enabled you to make high jumps to conclusions.



Developereo said:


> Lt. Dooley is making the jump in his premise, and you are defending his intellectual dishonesty by invoking freedom of speech. It is certainly freedom of speech in the same way as Hitler/Stalin/OBL's speeches were freedom of speech. Anyone can 'justify' their ideology by making ridiculous extrapolations and generalizations.


To 'justify' mean to make right. You obviously do not know the proper context of the word. In twisting it to suit, you have an avenue to attack Dooley without the need to read what he present.



Developereo said:


> Uh huh.


Absolutely.



Developereo said:


> What on earth is a 'dedicated' Muslim? Just because some criminal uses that label to describe themselves makes it valid to reverse-extrapolate that blame to all Muslims?


They were not criminals. They were warriors for Islam.



Developereo said:


> If a self-proclaimed 'black panther' or a 'dedicated' Jew commits a crime, shall we then conclude that all blacks and Jews are automatically criminals?


I see plenty of that here already.



Developereo said:


> Duh! No one here is questioning the intellectual content of the course. The whole objection is about the social presumptions underlying the premise for the course.


You can object to Dooley by creating your rebuttal. But first, you must study the enemy and that mean take your time and read what Dooley presented. But we have seen enough of your cowardice on that.



Developereo said:


> Once again, reasonable people do not declare war on races or religions; people who do so are called fanatical extremists.
> 
> Reasonable people do not willingly suspend Geneva Convention rules and deliberately target civilian centers with weapons of mass destruction; people who do so are called fanatical extremists.
> 
> The JFSC course fails the test of reasonableness on both counts.


Looks like someone is afraid his culture is getting a taste of its own medicine.



Developereo said:


> How about you show me an imaginary scenario at JFSC to nuke Bogota or Sao Paolo to fight the drug war.
> 
> Or an imaginary scenario at JFSC to nuke Kinshasa or Capetown to fight Somali pirates.
> 
> I am still waiting.
> 
> Hint: You will not find one. *Ever.* And once you understand why you will never find such a scenario being taught at JFSC, you will understand why we are objecting to this course.


All of those already debunked. Try something else.


----------



## King Solomon

Developereo said:


> How about you show me an imaginary scenario at JFSC to nuke Bogota or Sao Paolo to fight the drug war.
> 
> Or an imaginary scenario at JFSC to nuke Kinshasa or Capetown to fight Somali pirates.
> 
> I am still waiting.
> 
> Hint: You will not find one. *Ever.* And once you understand why you will never find such a scenario being taught at JFSC, you will understand why we are objecting to this course.



What makes you think those scenarios/models have not been tried between the major powers (US, Russia)?

Don't forget in any massive nuclear confrontation, the safest bet is probably to launch a full scale invasion of Australia or south africa since these places are likely to be safer. What makes you think nuking these places' scenario has not been tried? Not every scenario is bought to public attention like this one. These exercises are normally highly classified but this case seems to be an exception.


----------



## Developereo

gambit said:


> Only religions can declare war on religions. Only races can declare war on races. You obviously have not read Dooley's entire presentation to know what he was talking about. But then again, the muslim victimhood mentality clearly enabled you to make high jumps to conclusions.
> 
> 
> To 'justify' mean to make right. You obviously do not know the proper context of the word. In twisting it to suit, you have an avenue to attack Dooley without the need to read what he present.
> 
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> 
> They were not criminals. They were warriors for Islam.
> 
> 
> I see plenty of that here already.
> 
> 
> You can object to Dooley by creating your rebuttal. But first, you must study the enemy and that mean take your time and read what Dooley presented. But we have seen enough of your cowardice on that.
> 
> 
> Looks like someone is afraid his culture is getting a taste of its own medicine.
> 
> 
> All of those already debunked. Try something else.



So, you sidestepped and avoided every single point without rebuttal, preferring instead to randomly pepper your post with meaningless stock phrases about victims and cowardice.

Dooley is essentially asking his students to view (for an hour) this conflict as an all out religious crusade -- something the US administration has been at pains to deny over and over and over again. And again.

The US administration keeps saying that it does NOT view this conflict as a war on Islam, it does not expect its soldiers to hold that view, and it does not promote that view. And here we find out Dooley is doing exactly that in a US military course.



S-19 said:


> What makes you think those scenarios/models have not been tried between the major powers (US, Russia)?
> 
> Don't forget in any massive nuclear confrontation, the safest bet is probably to launch a full scale invasion of Australia or south africa since these places are likely to be safer. What makes you think nuking these places' scenario has not been tried? Not every scenario is bought to public attention like this one. These exercises are normally highly classified but this case seems to be an exception.



Once again, we are not talking about declaring war on a country or a military alliance. The whole issue here is to take the actions of some criminals and declare war on an entire religion.

That is why I gave the analogous examples of declaring war on a race (black pirates) or an ethnicity/continent (drug lords).

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Developereo said:


> So, you sidestepped and avoided every single point without rebuttal, preferring instead to randomly pepper your post with meaningless stock phrases about victims and cowardice.
> 
> Dooley is essentially asking his students to view this conflict as an all out religious crusade -- something the US administration has been at pains to deny over and over and over again. And again.


And once again, you avoid the necessity of reading his presentation. Funny on how often we are admonished on how the Quran or Islam does not say this or that and to look it up, but here you are ready to jump to conclusion when the material is far less voluminous.



Developereo said:


> Once again, we are not talking about declaring war on a country or a military alliance. The whole issue here is to take the actions of some criminals and declare war on an entire religion.
> 
> That is why I gave the analogous examples of declaring war on a race (black pirates) or an ethnicity/continent (drug lords).


All already debunked. Try something else.


----------



## Developereo

gambit said:


> And once again, you avoid the necessity of reading his presentation. Funny on how often we are admonished on how the Quran or Islam does not say this or that and to look it up, but here you are ready to jump to conclusion when the material is far less voluminous.



I read it just fine. He specifically takes the actions of 'Islamic terrorists' as a license to declare war on Islam. He _"lays out a possible four-phase war plan to carry out a forced transformation of the Islam religion. "_

I suggest *YOU* read the original post before taking off on the apologist bandwagon.



gambit said:


> All already debunked. Try something else.



Debunked how? Is there a similar course at JFSC that takes the actions of drug lords as justification to start nuking random cities in South America? Is there a course about nuking African cities in response to Somali piracy?

Please present actual course material instead of a knee-jerk, vacuous posting of 'debunked'.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## VCheng

A typical scene during academic discussion in USA (do listen till the end):






Please note how all views are said, and with emotion too, but openly and fairly.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LeGenD

vsdoc said:


> My friend, civilizational (for you as a people and a nation; and not in the broader context of humanity yet in the scenario being discussed) survival is not based on EMOTION or RELIGIOUS SENTIMENT.
> 
> Nor may I propose is it based on a poorly concealed patently transparent BLUFF.
> 
> May I also propose that BOTH your red-lines - vis-a-vis you TAC NUKES as well as wildly flailing out against perceived civilizational/traditional religious adversary nations (Israel, India), are too miltarily, strategically, and politically SHALLOW to be taken seriously by anyone.
> 
> It has been debated threadbare that were the Rubicon to be crossed, and Indian column/s be advancing and ingressing into Pakistani soil, a tactical nuke short of (or on) the advancing column is not going to be in any way advantageous to you.
> 
> You in effect have played your hand.
> 
> And it is then not only Indian nukes that would be raining down on you.
> 
> Please remember that the only sides that truly deployed tactical nukes (and that was like 30-40 years ago - nuclear doctrine and weapon tehnology, especialy conventional, has come a long way since then) were those that were fully willing and able to fight a nuclear war.
> 
> Nuclear war fighting is not equal to nuclear national suicide.
> 
> Nuclear war fighting has the doctrine to back it up.
> 
> Nuclear war fighting has the capability to back it up.
> 
> You have none of the above.
> 
> What you do have is a very short religious fuse and a pathologically overpowering need to bluff.
> 
> Even when you know that the world can see through it.


Again, I do not expect you to understand the scenario involving Mecca and Medina.

Attacking Mecca and Medina would be clear-cut declaration of 'war against Islam'. Under this scenario, all Muslims will be bound by faith to wage Jihad against the aggressor. This will be Jihad in true sense and not for political and geographical gains. This scenario will open a Pandora box, which may UNITE all Islamic nations on ideological grounds at least. The aggressor will also loose the right to conduct business with any Islamic nation in this context.

Do you event understand that how important Middle East is in economical sense for the entire world or at least for a large number of countries? Who will want to loose this market?

Even if we assume that somebody wishes to loose this market, no nation possesses the capability to *occupy* so many countries with conventional capabilities simultaneously. It is just not feasible. Supposedly, if USA is the aggressor; you can expect USA to control the waters but not lands. The only option would be conduct genocide on a scale never witnessed in history before. And will the International Community willingly accept this?

The aggressor will calculate the pros and cons for this kind of conflict. 

On the cons;

1. All Islamic nations become hostile
2. Loss of a major economic hub; the Middle East
3. Existential threat to Israel 
4. Existential threat to India
5. Opposition can be expected from many non-Islamic states

Do you really believe that this kind of war is feasible? Of course, many Muslims may die in this kind of war. However, world will be in serious turmoil afterwards.

War-gaming is one thing. Feasibility is another.

Try to understand the big picture here. Attacking one nation with nuclear weapons is easy. Attacking many is not at all feasible.

USA prefers divide-and-rule strategy instead. This works much better as WOT is showing.


----------



## lem34

Imagine the Saudis are allies and they think like this


----------



## vsdoc

LeGenD said:


> Again, I do not expect you to understand the scenario involving Mecca and Medina.



I understand. So do the Americans. It is part and parcel of war gaming. 



> Attacking Mecca and Medina would be clear-cut declaration of 'war against Islam'. Under this scenario, all Muslims will be bound by faith to wage Jihad against the aggressor. This will be Jihad in true sense and not for political and geographical gains. This scenario will open a Pandora box, which may UNITE all Islamic nations on ideological grounds at least. The aggressor will also loose the right to conduct business with any Islamic nation in this context.



I understand that there will be over a billion very pissed off people worldwide. That is not in question. Their collective response is. 

Institutional, Military and Asymmetric. Social and Cultural and Economic. Civilian - unfriendly and friendly collateral. That is all part of war gaming.

If you do not understand your enemy and predict his moves, all you can do when the time comes is depend on training and react situationally. Most advanced military powers do not find that adequate anymore.



> Do you event understand that how important Middle East is in economical sense for the entire world or at least for a large number of countries? Who will want to loose this market?



The midle east oil fields will not be damaged. Not by the Americans. Nor allowed to the locals by means of sabotage. Two Gulf Wars as well as the 10 year Iran-Iraq war before should have shown you how it can and will be done. 

The military might of the enemy will be neutralized first. As will Pakistani nukes in the first wave. Followed by tactical bombing of utilities and infrastructure. Power grids, railroads, bridges, dams, water works, refineries, fuel depots. 

If that does not bring the countries to their knees, this would in all probability then be followed by nukes on small to medium sized urban pockets. Casualties sub-hundred thousand, timed and executed to limit fallout (seasonal, wind patterns, etc.).



> Even if we assume that somebody wishes to loose this market, no nation possesses the capability to *occupy* so many countries with conventional capabilities simultaneously. It is just not feasible. Supposedly, if USA is the aggressor; you can expect USA to control the waters but not lands. The only option would be conduct genocide on a scale never witnessed in history before. And will the International Community willingly accept this?



Occupation will not be the objective. Quarantine will. 

Neighboring countries will be forced to close their borders and forcibly prevent survivors from streaming across to escape the fallout.

No nation will stand in the way of American nukes and the victim nation.



> The aggressor will calculate the pros and cons for this kind of conflict.
> 
> On the cons;
> 
> 1. All Islamic nations become hostile
> 2. Loss of a major economic hub; the Middle East
> 3. Existential threat to Israel
> 4. Existential threat to India
> 5. Opposition can be expected from many non-Islamic states
> 
> Do you really believe that this kind of war is feasible? Of course, many Muslims may die in this kind of war. However, world will be in serious turmoil afterwards.
> 
> War-gaming is one thing. Feasibility is another.
> 
> Try to understand the big picture here. Attacking one nation with nuclear weapons is easy. Attacking many is not at all feasible.
> 
> USA prefers divide-and-rule strategy instead. This works much better as WOT is showing.



This will all have been played out in the war gaming. Pakistan nukes will be neutralized before the first wave. Not just by American special forces, but by Russian and Chinese ones in tandem. 

Worst case scenario, Pakistan does get a few off and India gets hit. Collateral friendly casualties in a few hundreds of thousands. Maybe millions. Not near to an existential threat. It will never come close to that were Pakistan to start assembling. NFU is a doctrine. It is not the word of God. That will also be part of the war gaming. 

Please remember that neither will India stand in the way, nor will the US back off for India. Its the price we pay for where we are and who our neighbor is. It is also something that the Indian war machine will be war gaming for in its own way for when and if the time comes.

As will the Israelis and the Chinese.

There will be no uninterested parties here.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## King Solomon

vsdoc said:


> The midle east oil fields will not be damaged. Not by the Americans. Nor allowed to the locals by means of sabotage. Two Gulf Wars as well as the 10 year Iran-Iraq war before should have shown you how it can and will be done.
> 
> The military might of the enemy will be neutralized first. As will Pakistani nukes in the first wave. Followed by tactical bombing of utilities and infrastructure. Power grids, railroads, bridges, dams, water works, refineries, fuel depots.



The mere *threat* of an international coalition-led war will result in a total collapse of pakistan's government and the state. Same goes for all Middle east government including SA which governs Mecca/Medina. No need to go further than that.

I am inclined to think Russia and China would aid US because it would be a matter of international security.

Perhaps such an action would be possible after a major nuke-based terrorist attack which simultaneously targets many nations.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vsdoc

S-19 said:


> I am inclined to think Russia and China would aid US because it would be a matter of international security.



I agree. Russia merely sitting on the sidelines would suffice. China does not count one way or the other, as don't the other lesser nuclear powers. 

Push come to shove time, when the time comes to nuke somebody, there are only two veto votes in the world.



> Perhaps such an action would be possible after a major nuke-based terrorist attack which simultaneously targets many nations.



That will also be part of the war gaming. Both as uncontrolled precipitant as well as a controlled trigger.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LeGenD

vsdoc said:


> I understand. So do the Americans. It is part and parcel of war gaming.


Yes! They do. And this is why they do not take such a bold step. They are not idiots.

Remember 9/11? Most terrorists involved are believed to be Saudi Nationals. And yet! Saudi Arabia was not attacked. Does this gives you any hint?

War-gaming can be done for many kinds of scenarios. However, it is not necessary that all of such plans will be feasible to carry out until or unless geopolitical scenario favors them.



vsdoc said:


> I understand that there will be over a billion very pissed off people worldwide. That is not in question. Their collective response is.


Do not underestimate the power of religious motivation - even in modern times. Collective response (or at minimum: state of readiness) will be of surprising proportions.



vsdoc said:


> Institutional, Military and Asymmetric. Social and Cultural and Economic. Civilian - unfriendly and friendly collateral. That is all part of war gaming.


When people will UNITE! All of these factors will not matter much. United Islamic front will be a force to be reckoned with.



vsdoc said:


> If you do not understand your enemy and predict his moves, all you can do when the time comes is depend on training and react situationally. Most advanced military powers do not find that adequate anymore.


This is interesting point. Question is that which particular Islamic nation USA will decide to hit after Saudi Arabia? Maybe Pakistan? You can then expect Iran to directly support Pakistan in this hypothetical scenario. And China may also supply weapons to Pakistan. This front will definitely become more challenging.



vsdoc said:


> The midle east oil fields will not be damaged. Not by the Americans. Nor allowed to the locals by means of sabotage. Two Gulf Wars as well as the 10 year Iran-Iraq war before should have shown you how it can and will be done.


Access to Middle East OIL will be certainly denied to the aggressor. It will be also used to gather some level of International Support against the aggressor. Interesting! Isn't it? 

Even if USA does not needs Middle East OIL, there are many other interested customers. These nations will be definitely concerned.



vsdoc said:


> The military might of the enemy will be neutralized first. As will Pakistani nukes in the first wave. Followed by tactical bombing of utilities and infrastructure. Power grids, railroads, bridges, dams, water works, refineries, fuel depots.


Look at the world map:






Now tell me genius! Is it really possible to perform conventional strikes on such a gigantic scale as you pointed out? And accomplish total breakthrough in a short span of time? Even if all seven US fleets are put to use, it may take a year to cripple so many nations with conventional means. And such an operation will be very expensive.

And you assume that Pakistan will not get ready for confrontation after strikes in Saudi Arabia? Pakistan may even give some nukes to Iran to boost its security.



vsdoc said:


> If that does not bring the countries to their knees, this would in all probability then be followed by nukes on small to medium sized urban pockets. Casualties sub-hundred thousand, timed and executed to limit fallout (seasonal, wind patterns, etc.).


By that time, Israel and India will be done with.



vsdoc said:


> Occupation will not be the objective. Quarantine will.


Overseas muslims will come in to the picture. Countries such as UK and India are specially vulnerable due to sizable populace of muslims in these countries. And quarantine cannot be imposed by a single aggressor on such a grand scale unless the rest of the world cooperates. 



vsdoc said:


> Neighboring countries will be forced to close their borders and forcibly prevent survivors from streaming across to escape the fallout.


As hinted above, many non-Islamic states will not necessarily support the aggressor or cooperate with it in this kind of war.



vsdoc said:


> No nation will stand in the way of American nukes and the victim nation.


China and Russia may intervene if nuclear fallout effects them and pressurize USA to give up. In case of Pakistan, nuclear fallout will definitely effect China. 



vsdoc said:


> This will all have been played out in the war gaming. Pakistan nukes will be neutralized before the first wave.


This may happen but nuclear fallout will effect both India and China and these states will be pissed.



vsdoc said:


> Not just by American special forces, but by Russian and Chinese ones in tandem.


Is this joke of the century? You expect China and Russia to support USA in this kind of scenario?  

On what basis? Or are you assuming a GLOBAL COALITION against the Islamic front?



vsdoc said:


> Worst case scenario, Pakistan does get a few off and India gets hit. Collateral friendly casualties in a few hundreds of thousands. Maybe millions. Not near to an existential threat. It will never come close to that were Pakistan to start assembling. NFU is a doctrine. It is not the word of God. That will also be part of the war gaming.


Nuclear attack on India will scare off International Investors from this country and Indian economy will collapse. Result: more misery.



vsdoc said:


> Please remember that neither will India stand in the way, nor will the US back off for India. Its the price we pay for where we are and who our neighbor is. It is also something that the Indian war machine will be war gaming for in its own way for when and if the time comes.


This does not surprises me. However, China will definitely not support USA unless geopolitical scenario is vastly different from what we have witnessed in our times. 



vsdoc said:


> As will the Israelis and the Chinese.
> 
> There will be no uninterested parties here.


Stop day dreaming! Genius.

The war against Islamic front only becomes feasible if the rest of the world is willing to assist USA and tolerate the resulting fallout. You are presenting a fictional scenario.

Unless USA is attacked by nukes from Islamic extremists! Which is also a pure fantasy - it will not find the motivation to attack and destroy the entire Islamic front and neither it will be able to gather international support for such an ambitious adventure.

Point is not about the capability of USA. Point is about existing 'ground realities' that will come in to play in these hypothetical scenarios.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Developereo said:


> *I read it just fine. * He specifically takes the actions of 'Islamic terrorists' as a license to declare war on Islam. He _"lays out a possible four-phase war plan to carry out a forced transformation of the Islam religion. "_
> 
> I suggest *YOU* read the original post before taking off on the apologist bandwagon.


Then you should have no problems seeing that Dooley presented the 'worst case' scenario where militant Islam is no longer constraint by moderate Islam. What does slide 7 say?



Developereo said:


> Debunked how? Is there a similar course at JFSC that takes the actions of drug lords as justification to start nuking random cities in South America? Is there a course about nuking African cities in response to Somali piracy?
> 
> Please present actual course material instead of a knee-jerk, vacuous posting of 'debunked'.


There is no such 'course' because the purpose of the drug cartels and pirates are for personal pleasures -- *PERSONAL* -- not for purposes of state. At best, the use of the military in such a situation is to provide hardware support for law enforcement, local or national, if those agencies found themselves effectively outgunned, so to speak. But if the Mexican drug cartels or the pirates managed to wrest power from the governments and begins to behave with actions befitting governments, then we have evolved from dealing with petty criminals to dealing with new governments. So it looks like debunked is the appropriate word for your truly intellectually vacuous argument.


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Using nukes today comes heavy geopolitical consequences.

When USA hesitated to do so in Vietnam , why would they do so for any Islamic nation when their conventional capability alone can achieve the required objectives?

Most probably they might do so in retaliation.


----------



## Omar1984

Not sure if its a war against Islam. America also has millions of Muslims living comfortably. Maybe its a war for resources or a war against Caliphate (Muslim unity). I don't believe its a war against terror. Terrorism has always existed in every society.


----------



## King Solomon

> "They hate everything you stand for and will never coexist with you, unless you submit," the instructor, Army. Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley, said in a presentation last July for



If this quote is correct, I cannot fathom why some members were defending this officer in the other topic.

On topic, I think US has already made it clear before that the war is with radical terrorists and not Islam.


----------



## Omar1984

S-19 said:


> On topic, I think US has already made it clear before that the war is with radical terrorists and not Islam.



And you believe everything the U.S. government says? Its best to talk about it rather than blindly following any government.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## junaid1

That's the reason of their stay in afganistan . kill as much as Muslims you can .


----------



## Wright

Im not so sure, it appears muslims kill each other more often than any outsider could ever hope to. 

There is always news of an explosion that "rocked a marketplace" in the middle east, or Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DRaisinHerald

Wright said:


> Im not so sure, it appears muslims kill each other more often than any outsider could ever hope to



Is the US in some sort of competition with the Taliban; that how many innocent Muslims can each kill?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## King Solomon

Omar1984 said:


> And you believe everything the U.S. government says? Its best to talk about it rather than blindly following any government.



No, I'm definitely not that naive. Maybe you should visit Afghanistan to see how radical the people are. Radicalism is a growing problem in the west.

But I do recognise that sometimes they are hypocrite eg. their support for al-qaeda terrorists in Libya.



DRaisinHerald said:


> Is the US in some sort of competition with the Taliban; that how many innocent Muslims can each kill?



Are you aware of the fact that more muslis were killed by sectarian wars in iraq than the actual US military?

Muslims need to embrace the morality of the Koran. Only then they can prosper.



Wright said:


> Im not so sure, it appears muslims kill each other more often than any outsider could ever hope to.
> 
> There is always news of an explosion that "rocked a marketplace" in the middle east, or Pakistan.



It is a natural process. If the US military does not do it, the fil.th of radicalism and extremism would be cleaned by Muslims themselves as they kill and hate each other...

The problem starts when infidel Kafir US does the cleaning. Maybe it hurts most muslim's ego but they should embrace reality that Islam is in need for a dire cleaning for it to go back to the original roots of Koran.


----------



## DRaisinHerald

S-19 said:


> The problem starts when infidel Kafir US does the cleaning...



Shame on us Muslims...how could we condemn such holy acts? The US is just cleaning the _f1lth_ from the world, we should stay by her Holiness.
All Hail Uncle Sam 

To go back to our roots, we need to kill all the Evil Wahh@bizz from the world, only then we can prosper

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## King Solomon

DRaisinHerald said:


> Shame on us Muslims...how could we condemn such holy acts? The US is just cleaning the _f1lth_ from the world, we should stay by her Holiness.
> All Hail Uncle Sam
> 
> To go back to our roots, we need to kill all the Evil Wahh@bizz from the world, only then we can prosper






> And if you turn away, He will* replace you with another people; then they will not be the likes of you.* 47:38



As I said, cleaning is a *natural process and will continue as long as Muslims don't uphold only the Koran.* What hurts muslims is that *infidel secular Kafir US* is doing the cleaning rather than the Muslims themselves... Nobody cried when hundreds of thousands of muslims were killed by sectarian wars in Iraq but everybody cries when they see civilian casualties by US which are far, far, far lower...

Nobody even mentioned the word "wahabi" so please do not divert the topic or get paranoid

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MilSpec

S-19 said:


> If this quote is correct, I cannot fathom why some members were defending this officer in the other topic.
> 
> On topic, I think US has already made it clear before that the war is with radical terrorists and not Islam.



May be he was quoting what Radical Jihadis teach their students, Seems like it has been taken out of context.


----------



## DRaisinHerald

babajees said:


> Read more: Military class suspended for view on Islam | Fox News



_His war plan suggests possible outcomes such as "Saudi Arabia threatened with starvation ... Islam reduced to cult status," and the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia "destroyed."_

This guy's way of thinking is messed up.


----------



## King Solomon

DRaisinHerald said:


> But my brother, Wahhabis are root of all problems in the Muslim world
> And don't worry, I agree with you: death to evil Sunnis and people who oppose Shias and Quran-Alonists



That is not true. *ALL* those who divide themselves as sects are the problem. Now don't think I am advising you to kill all people because that is not what I mean.



> Indeed, those who have divided their religion and become sects - you, [O Muhammad], are not [associated] with them in anything. Their affair is only to Allah ; then He will inform them about what they used to do.6:159​




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



> Long live the cleaning!



Of course. US' war on terror is a war on Biblical proportions to clean Islam from all impurities. God is himself behind the US and *not* behind the fanatic barbaric terrorists who have corrupted Islam since "hadiths" were invented. That is why you see those terrorists losing everywhere and killed like rats. As per the Koran, it is God who is doing the cleaning through his servant (US). Problem for you is: *his servant happens to be infidel secular Kafir state rather than a (so-called) "islamic state"* So, you sympathise with the terrorists when actually you should be doing the opposite.

Had the cleaning been done by a so-called "islamic" country like pakistan, you would support it. Heck, God is also using Pakistan to do the cleaning - Taliban of pakistans who are being killed everyday. You *DO support THIS* cleaning, don't you? If you do, don't be a hypocrite and come back to reality.



> We should invite the Americans on Pakistani soil, can you believe only some odd 20% follow the real Islam in Pakistan? Damn, these Evil Sunnis have taken over my beloved country



As I said before, everybody who declares that they believe in one God and fulfills the conditions laid in Koran, is a Muslim. Doesn't matter what they identify themselves with. 

As far as sects, they may be ignoring what is in the Koran but they are *still Muslims i*f they qualify the characteristics laid down. Their affair is "left to God" as per this verse. For your convenience, again:



> Indeed, those who have divided their religion and become sects - you, [O Muhammad], are not [associated] with them in anything. Their affair is only to Allah ; then He will inform them about what they used to do.6:159​


​

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DRaisinHerald

S-19 said:


> Of course. US' war on terror is a war on Biblical proportions to clean Islam from all impurities. *God is himself behind the US and not* behind the fanatic barbaric terrorists



Preserving. 

Anyways, you seem to take everything on this forum 2 facedly. 
The deaths of Non-Muslims are condemnable because they're innocent beings; the deaths and killings of Muslims are not because it is a Holy Act which God himself is masterplanning behind the Scenes. Yes, the same God which claims in his Book that he is eternally Merciful and the accounts of the wrongdoes shall only be taken after their deaths.


----------



## King Solomon

DRaisinHerald said:


> Preserving.
> 
> Anyways, you seem to take everything on this forum 2 facedly.
> The deaths of Non-Muslims are condemnable because they're innocent beings; the deaths and killings of Muslims are not because it is a Holy Act which God himself is masterplanning behind the Scenes. Yes, the same God which claims in his Book that he is eternally Merciful and the accounts of the wrongdoes shall only be taken after their deaths.



You are trying to play semantics here. Answer this first:



> Had the cleaning been done by a so-called "islamic" country like pakistan, you would support it. Heck, God is also using Pakistan to do the cleaning - Taliban of pakistans who are being killed everyday. You DO support THIS cleaning, don't you? If you do, don't be a hypocrite and come back to reality.


----------



## DRaisinHerald

S-19 said:


> You are trying to play semantics here. Answer this first:



Hah, you're comparing apples with roses. Taliban are not common citizens; it's an organisation who's main purpose is kill kill kill.

The civilians of Iraq, be they Sunni Muslim or Shia Muslim, are are bunch of people which don't deserve to be killed like dogs by the "saviour" USA. God is not cruel buddy, please don't Slander him by saying he's supporting a Terrorist.


----------



## SMC

VCheng said:


> A typical scene during academic discussion in USA (do listen till the end):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please note how all views are said, and with emotion too, but openly and fairly.



This is in Canada.


----------



## VCheng

SMC said:


> This is in Canada.



I was sent this link by someone as I have described it, but the point is the frankness of the discussion is quite typical.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vsdoc

LeGenD said:


> Yes! They do. And this is why they do not take such a bold step. They are not idiots.
> 
> Remember 9/11? Most terrorists involved are believed to be Saudi Nationals. And yet! Saudi Arabia was not attacked. Does this gives you any hint?
> 
> War-gaming can be done for many kinds of scenarios. However, it is not necessary all of such plans will be feasible to carry out until or unless geopolitical scenario favors them.



That is a given man. We are discussing war gaming. And what would transpire were it to happen in real life. 

The US did not need to attack the Saudis. They were and are already well entrenched there and control the spigots. 



> Do not underestimate the power of religious motivation - even in modern times. Collective response (or at minimum: state of readiness) will be of surprising proportions.



Do not underestimate the industrial and financial power of the West. And the collective firepower it can bring to bear on the battlefield. 

Against that, religious motivation and unity, if at all, will simply translate into a significant mass of humanity united in its belief that they are dying for their religious faith. 

But die they will. 



> When people will UNITE! All of these factors will not matter much. United Islamic front will be a force to be reckoned with.



United Islam will have neither the numbers nor financial and industrial base nor the firepower in an all out war. Not conventional. Most definitely not nuclear.



> This is interesting point. Question is that which particular Islamic nation USA will decide to hit after Saudi Arabia? Maybe Pakistan? You can then expect Iran to directly support Pakistan in this hypothetical scenario. And China may also supply weapons to Pakistan. This front will definitely become more challenging.



In a war against Islam, the US/Christian world will hit Pakistan first. The Shock and Awe doctrine of the American war machine indoctrinated in psy ops over a century of war will combine taking out the religious masthead alongside taking out the figurative sword and standard bearer. Not that the "Islamic Bomb" can hurt them. But that taking it out will hurt many more and break their collective psyche. You destroy the enemy's biggest weapon, the fight goes out of the rest of them. 

As for China, they are not a suicidal people. Not to mention that there is nothing China can supply pakistan that can protect Pakistan against the US, or when you come right down to it, protect China against the US should they draw their attention.

You all weather friend will stand aside. If not actively assist in de-fanging you when the time comes. As you yourself mentioned many times over - China is right there in the vicinity. It does not want to irradiate its own population because of someone else's stupidity. 

In effect, when hostilities break out, and if someone has to die, and it would be foolish to imagine that someone to be the West, it would be in China's best interest that they not die alongside - even it means they need to roll up their sleeves and help you die quickly - and quietly.



> Access to Middle East OIL will be certainly denied to the aggressor. It will be also used to gather some level of International Support against the aggressor. Interesting! Isn't it?



What is interesting is you having no clue about the logistics of oil and how easy it would be for a single US naval fleet to control it when hostilities break out. Thanks to the geography and the most formidable naval armada the world has ever seen. They can and will come in. But nothing will get out unless they allow it. Take a wild guess on whose side giant net energy consumers like China and India will be then. 



> Even if USA does not needs Middle East OIL, there are many other interested customers. These nations will be definitely concerned.



Concerned enough to put themselves militarily in between the US and the oil wells? Seriously?!



> Look at the world map:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now tell me genius! Is it really possible to perform conventional strikes on such a gigantic scale as you pointed out? And accomplish total breakthrough in a short span of time? Even if all seven US fleets are put to use, it may take a year to cripple so many nations with conventional means. And such an operation will be very expensive.



Einstein, the US will not be wasting time and money and blood of its own in a conventional expeitionary force in a D-day landings scenario, spread over continents. In the map you have shown, there are nerve centers. Those nerve centers will be attacked. By all means available. The rest do not matter. Are simply cannon fodder not going anywhere. And wil fold like dominoes in a heap with a push once the nerve centers are taken out.

War gaming Einstein. Read more. Think more. Dispassionately.



> And you assume that Pakistan will not get ready for confrontation after strikes in Saudi Arabia? Pakistan may even give some nukes to Iran to boost its security.



I do not believe that Pakistan will have the luxury of time and warning. As I have described above. 

And anyways, how do you "get ready for confrontation" when that is going to be coming down on you from 80 miles up and 12000 kilometers away? You can only wait. And pray.



> By that time, Israel and India will be done with.



Don't be silly. You move towards assembly and you become radioactive glass. Behave rationally and you will simply be de-fanged for posterity.



> Overseas muslims will come in to the picture. Countries such as UK and India are specially vulnerable due to sizable populace of muslims in these countries. And quarantine cannot be imposed by a single aggressor on such a grand scale unless the rest of the world cooperates.



This war, were it to come, would be against radical Islam. Neither India nor the US muslim populations are pockets of such. If anything, being Indian would be the protective identity of our muslims. I cannot speak of the US. We have seen what happens to their citizenry belonging to enemy ethnicity in the distant and recent past.



> As hinted above, many non-Islamic states will not necessarily support the aggressor or cooperate with it in this kind of war.



They do not need to support or cooperate. They cannot/will not get in the way. And at most will stand to the side. That is good enough.



> China and Russia may intervene if nuclear fallout effects them and pressurize USA to give up. In case of Pakistan, nuclear fallout will definitely effect China.



You say the words yet you do not see. This is exactly the reason Russia and China will be at the forefront of helping you die easily and quietly. For your own good and that of the rest of surrounding Asia. 

Also remember that both Russia and China have buffer states and people who are children of a lesser God so to speak between you and your fallout and those of them that really count. They can and will live with that were it to come to that. 



> This may happen but nuclear fallout will effect both India and China and these states will be pissed.



Pissed is not the same of having the capability of doing something about it or actually doing something about it. Both countries also will not have the choice of wasteful luxuries like being pissed for long. They would and will do something about it instead. And that will not be standing between the US and you. 



> Is this joke of the century? You expect China and Russia to support USA in this kind of scenario?



Already answered above. Remember what I said earlier about there only being two veto votes that count when it comes to unilateral nuclear strikes? Well, if it comes to war against Islam, you just lost both.



> On what basis? Or are you assuming a GLOBAL COALITION against the Islamic front?



Do not flatter yourself. Global is nowhere needed. The US is more than capable on its own. As are any of the other Christian/NATO nuclear powers when you get down to it.



> Nuclear attack on India will scare off International Investors from this country and Indian economy will collapse. Result: more misery.



You move to assembly, you die. India will then not have the luxury of killing your cities selectively. Nor will the US or the other surounding nuclear powers. Please understand that you stand on very thin non-existant ice when you threaten unilateral pre-emptive (not retaliatory, not punitive) nuclear strikes. You become a nuclear rogue. You WILL be taken out. Quickly and without mercy. Far more quickly than you can manage to get your own nukes assembled and out of their silos.



> This does not surprises me. However, China will definitely not support USA unless geopolitical scenario is vastly different from what we have witnessed in our times.



For the nth time, China does not have to. China cannot do much even if it wanted to. Without putting its own people into harm's way. Which they will not for you. Nobody will. 



> Stop day dreaming! Genius.
> 
> The war against Islamic front only becomes feasible if the rest of the world is willing to assist USA and tolerate the resulting fallout. You are presenting a fictional scenario.



Already discussed above. The US would be overkill were it to be a war on Islam.

Yes it is a fictional scenario for now. No I am not dreaming.



> Unless USA is attacked by nukes from Islamic extremists! Which is also a pure fantasy - it will not find the motivation to attack and destroy the entire Islamic front and neither it will be able to gather international support for such an ambitious adventure.
> 
> Point is not about the capability of USA. Point is about existing 'ground realities' that will come in to play in these hypothetical scenarios.



The US has gone to war for less. Much less. On what some would say was the flimsiest of evidence. Evidence others would say was planted by those interested parties that benefited most from going to war. And staying at war.

Yes it may probably never happen. But looking at the way things are playing out in the world today, do you honestly believe that it possibly could not?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Irfan Baloch

And they have us believe that the Fascist Nazis lost in WW2? it seems that the Heinrich Himmler's spirit found a new host in some Americans
just replace the word Jews with Muslims and you see the same content, same reasoning and same single minded justification of genocide by the American policy makers like the henchmen of Hitler. 

the report says that about 800 students have attended these fascist lectures to it seems that there might be 800 "isolated incidents" around the world wherever American troops and their black-ops are operating. come to think of using white phosphorus, killing civilians including children at point blank range, torture, humiliation and rape, desecration of corpses and Quran. 

it seems that the philosophy has been put to use at a wholesale level.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Audio

Irfan Baloch said:


> And they have us believe that the Fascist Nazis lost in WW2? it seems that the Heinrich Himmler's spirit found a new host in some Americans
> just replace the word Jews with Muslims and you see the same content, same reasoning and same single minded justification of genocide by the American policy makers like the henchmen of Hitler.



except the jews in the 30's didin't go crashing aeroplanes and doing suicide attacks on trains full of civilians....or tried to create some utopia of a pan-jewish state.

little differences easy to forget, no...



Irfan Baloch said:


> the report says that about 800 students have attended these fascist lectures to it seems that there might be 800 "isolated incidents" around the world



There are also students who vehemently oppose any involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, West Bank....etc...they think Israel continues a policy akin to the nazis and so forth...



Irfan Baloch said:


> wherever American troops and their black-ops are operating. come to think of using white phosphorus, killing civilians including children at point blank range, torture, humiliation and rape, desecration of corpses and Quran.
> 
> it seems that the philosophy has been put to use at a wholesale level.



So much sweeping generalizations and populism on a wholesale level....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Irfan Baloch

vsdoc said:


> Don't be silly. You move towards assembly and you become radioactive glass. Behave rationally and you will simply be de-fanged for posterity.




dont be too smug. a good part of our eastern neighbourhood would already be made into a radioactive glass (as you put it) before we done for.

you have very cleverly narrowed down the discussion to Pakistan only. I admire your style , no surprise there when you have two Indian flags. Pakistan's destruction by America will be an Indian dream but that dream will be in a radiological wasteland of the whole subcontinent. we will take you down with us. 

yea we cant hit the bully but we will break the nose and teeth of the smirking India.



Audio said:


> except the jews in the 30's didin't go crashing aeroplanes and doing suicide attacks on trains full of civilians....or tried to create some utopia of a pan-jewish state.
> 
> little differences easy to forget, no.....



A stupid and pathetic justification.
do you like to present yourself as the 9/11 hijackers?

if you justify something on the same lines on the bigger magnitude then how are you any better than the Al Qaeda or Nazis? 
please dont worry about responding.
your choice of avatar pretty much explains about yourself.


----------



## vsdoc

Irfan Baloch said:


> dont be too smug. a good part of our eastern neighbourhood would already be made into a radioactive glass (as you put it) before we done for.
> 
> you have very cleverly narrowed down the discussion to Pakistan only. I admire your style , no surprise there when you have two Indian flags. Pakistan's destruction by America will be an Indian dream but that dream will be in a radiological wasteland of the whole subcontinent. we will take you down with us.
> 
> yea we cant hit the bully but we will break the nose and teeth of the smirking India.



India is not the one going after you. Why would you target India with your nukes?

Just because you want to use them before you lose them?

Just because you want to wipe the "smirk" off our faces before you die?

Be reasonable man.

What happens if the US nukes you fom Arab soil?

Or makes it appear that its Iran that has launched?

How will you react? Will you nuke India?

What happens if the US nukes the UAE from close to the Iranian border with Iraq?

What happens if the US first nukes Iran from Pakistani soil? Or from Arab soil?

Or makes it appear as such?

How will they react?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Audio

Irfan Baloch said:


> A stupid and pathetic justification.
> do you like to present yourself as the 9/11 hijackers?
> 
> if you justify something on the same lines on the bigger magnitude then how are you any better than the Al Qaeda or Nazis?
> please dont worry about responding.
> your choice of avatar pretty much explains about yourself.



Well im sorry, but you brought up the imaginary parallel of the Jews in the 30's and the supposed assault on Muslims today.

I simply clarified with an example of what is different in those 2 scenarios. 

Point is...there were no extremist Jews back then. You cannot compare the two situations.
What Hitler did was action, what US is doing is reaction (less in Iraq's case)

What Muslims *should* be doing is weeding out the radical elements on their own like we do (with some slip-ups, granted). 



Irfan Baloch said:


> please dont worry about responding.
> your choice of avatar pretty much explains about yourself.



it is just debate, don't be obsessed with iconography....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Developereo

gambit said:


> Then you should have no problems seeing that Dooley presented the 'worst case' scenario where militant Islam is no longer constraint by moderate Islam.



Translation: when moderate Muslims fail to control the militants, we will nuke Mecca.
Analogy: when moderate black Africans fail to control Somali piracy, we will nuke Kinshasa.
Analogy: when moderate latinos fail to control drug trafficking, we will nuke Sao Paolo.



gambit said:


> There is no such 'course' because the purpose of the drug cartels and pirates are for personal pleasures -- *PERSONAL* -- not for purposes of state. At best, the use of the military in such a situation is to provide hardware support for law enforcement, local or national, if those agencies found themselves effectively outgunned, so to speak.



A distinction without difference: in the end, it's all about power. What matters is that, in all these cases, criminal gangs operate with impunity by taking advantage of weak governments' lawlessness.



gambit said:


> But if the Mexican drug cartels or the pirates managed to wrest power from the governments and begins to behave with actions befitting governments, then we have evolved from dealing with petty criminals to dealing with new governments.



Exactly which government does AQ control? Any more so that the drug cartels? As mentioned above, AQ operate in lawless regions of various countries; exactly as drug dealers and pirates do. Drug cartels control large parts of Mexico and Colombia which are no-go zones for regular law enforcement and military. Many elements of these governments are believed to be working for the drug lords. Somali pirates wield similar power in Somalia.

By Dooley's (and your) analogy, this ongoing situation (several decades in the case of drugs) should justify drawing up scenarios to nuke major metropolitan areas in South America.


----------



## Mav3rick

Aryan_B said:


> And then we have some Muslims who come on her and try to say that our corrupt leaders are right to ally or work with Americans. That is probably also the reason they do not want Muslim countries to have nuclear weapons. they want to mow defenseless Muslims down.


 
Correct, however isn't destruction of Mecca one of the signs of end of times?


----------



## Developereo

I can't believe this nonsense discussion about 'vaporizing' Pakistan and the Muslim world is still continuing.

Please understand that nuclear weapons are not the only retaliation. If any country, Muslim or otherwise, is 'vaporized', they will doubtless have 'doomsday' contingency plans to unleash bio/chem weapons onto the attacker. These doomsday retaliations do not need ICBMs, they are not blocked by ABMs, and no country in the world, US included, has adequate defenses or is prepared to pay that price.

The only deterrence against them is the threat of nuclear retaliation but, one you have already exercised the nuclear option, the other side has no reason to hold back.

So, much to the dismay of the cheerleaders here, no one is going to be vaporizing the Muslim world.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vsdoc

Developereo said:


> I can't believe this nonsense discussion about 'vaporizing' Pakistan and the Muslim world is still continuing.
> 
> Please understand that nuclear weapons are not the only retaliation. If any country, Muslim or otherwise, is 'vaporized', they will doubtless have 'doomsday' contingency plans to unleash bio/chem weapons onto the attacker. These doomsday retaliations do not need ICBMs, they are not blocked by ABMs, and no country in the world, US included, has adequate defenses or is prepared to pay that price.
> 
> The only deterrence against them is the threat of nuclear retaliation but, one you have already exercised the nuclear option, the other side has no reason to hold back.
> 
> So, much to the dismay of the cheerleaders here, no one is going to be vaporizing the Muslim world.



Good point. Something that will in turn further vitiate the atmosphere against muslims living in these countries.

The CDC will no doubt be on high alert. As will all water teatment plants. Airports. Ports. 

But please also remember that this will be no different (save for alert level) the the threat the US faces everyday from disgruntled elements from the nations it has waged war on over the past century.

The threat of a bio attack and the motive for waging bio war has always been there.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Developereo

vsdoc said:


> Good point. Something that will in turn further vitiate the atmosphere against muslims living in these countries.
> 
> The CDC will no doubt be on high alert. As will all water teatment plants.



The whole scenario is 'end of times' when Mecca/Medina are nuked. For that option to be exercised in the first place, the atmosphere against Muslims would be thoroughly vitiated already.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## vsdoc

Developereo said:


> The whole scenario is 'end of times' when Mecca/Medina are nuked. For that option to be exercised, the atmosphere against Muslims would be thoroughly vitiated already.



Not necessarily. Some of us here have been at pains to explain to you guys the difference between Islam and Muslims en masse and radical Islam.

There will be huge pockets of Muslims that will not be affected. Who can choose to remain integrated into the social fabric of their neutral secular countries. Till and if they choose not to be.

Once you enter war as a combatant the gloves are necessarily off.

As a corollary, as the only Islamic nuclear power, there will be a HUGE onus on Pakistan to behave responsibly and as a NATION first and foremost.

As against a huge body of angry muslims.

With nukes.

You guys talk down to Hindus for being pagan idol worshippers. There are those amongst you who take great pride in Islam being the purest and newest and latest reiteration of the Holy word. Not suffering from the drawbacks and fallacies of other older more primitive pagan religions or indeed Abrahamic ones.

But you still go mental if someone lampoons your prophet or holy book.

And you would risk anihilation if someone blows up your holy place.

Why is your faith so insecure then?

If you attach so much importance to a piece of nature, how can you talk down to others who worship nature, creatures, and idols in their own right?

I don't see the logic here.

Your faith necessarily needs to be stronger and within your own hearts that it does not need to be bolstered by physical form.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Developereo

vsdoc said:


> Not necessarily. Some of us here have been at pains to explain to you guys the difference between Islam and Muslims en masse and radical Islam.



The whole premise of this thread, and course, is that there is no significant difference between radical and mainstream Islam, hence a 'total war on Islam'. Lt. Dooley does not mince words: he wants to reduce Islam -- all of Islam -- to a 'cult status'.

Nobody has any issue with combating extremists. The whole debate here is about the attempted and implied characterization of mainstream Islam in Dooley's course.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Audio

Developereo said:


> The whole premise of this thread, and course, is that there is no significant difference between radical and mainstream Islam, hence a 'total war on Islam'. Lt. Dooley does not mince words: he wants to reduce Islam -- all of Islam -- to a 'cult status'.



There is a difference.

But war on it will only come when when mainstream, moderate Islam looses control and gets subdued by the radical elements.

You just dont want to see that we can and do make this difference. A lot of the convenient _"evil West"_ rhetoric goes out the window after that and let's face it, that's all you got, and without it you just wouldn't be able to post.


----------



## Irfan Baloch

Developereo said:


> The whole premise of this thread, and course, is that there is no significant difference between radical and mainstream Islam, hence a 'total war on Islam'. Lt. Dooley does not mince words: he wants to reduce Islam -- all of Islam -- to a 'cult status'.
> 
> Nobody has any issue with combating extremists. The whole debate here is about the attempted and implied characterization of mainstream Islam in Dooley's course.



hence the justification of nuking Mecca and Medina.
there are no two views about it no matter how these guys spin it now.

now if I or you show alarm over this mindset then we are reminded about 9/11 atrocity and whenever there are "isolated" incidents by the sergeants & agents of America across the globe, they are used as a justification and a "reaction".

it doesnt matter how a civilian is killed whether it was a dirty bomb planted by a wild eyed bearded fanatic that had very little time for personal hygiene 

or 

it was a "smart bomb" dropped from thousands of feet above in the sky by a tom cruise look alike pilot.

a civilians death is an atrocity whatever the lame reasoning is used. what is equally sickening is the justification for such actions and such mindset
its as if the Western society is slowly being sleep walked and brain washed into accepting the deaths of tens of millions a certain race and religion.

this is why I believe, that the Nazi philosophy never died. its very much live and kicking. only that it has found new hosts.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Developereo

Audio said:


> A lot of the convenient _"evil West"_ rhetoric goes out the window after that and let's face it, that's all you got, and without it you just wouldn't be able to post.



I divide the 'West' into three groups of people.

-- radical fanatics (in three piece suits) who are no better than the Islamist fanatics.

-- mainstream ordinary people who are basically fair minded, despite being brainwashed by the fanatics above.

-- the dregs of society who are losers in real life and who try to bolster their self-esteem by beating their chests behind Western achievements (which they themselves had little to do with).

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Audio

Irfan Baloch said:


> hence the justification of nuking Mecca and Medina.
> there are no two views about it no matter how these guys spin it now.



You actually make it sound real. As if it already happened. How about that view? It didnt happen.



Irfan Baloch said:


> now if I or you show alarm over this mindset then we are reminded about 9/11 atrocity and whenever there are "isolated" incidents by the sergeants & agents of America across the globe, they are used as a justification and a "reaction".



Now this actually did happen. See the difference?



Irfan Baloch said:


> its as if the Western society is slowly being sleep walked and brain washed into accepting the deaths of tens of millions a certain race and religion.



How, when? links, not fantasies please.

When will you and Developeon accept there isn't a uniformed bad view on Islam in the West. However that is changing, partially because of the cultural divide (massive in some cases), partially because of the inability of Muslims themselves to restrain the radical elements
themselves.

When will you accept the responsabilities that you have? Granted some nutcase blowing himself up isnt your responsability per se, but if that pulls behind it an attack on your soil does it become your issue???



Developereo said:


> I divide the 'West' into three groups of people.
> 
> -- radical fanatics (in three piece suits) who are no better than the Islamist fanatics.
> 
> -- mainstream ordinary people who are basically fair minded, despite being brainwashed by the fanatics above.
> 
> -- the dregs of society who are losers in real life and who try to bolster their self-esteem by beating their chests behind Western achievements (which they themselves had little to do with).



Simple answer from a simple mind. 

btw: to which one do you belong? Seems you left out "_out of work immigrants trying to enforce shariah down our throats while on welfare_". So im curious where do you see yourself then.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Developereo

Irfan Baloch said:


> it was a "smart bomb" dropped from thousands of feet above in the sky by a tom cruise look alike pilot.



The bombing of Dresden, the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- all have been 'justified' because the victors write the rules.

After the Iraq war, we thought there would be no more reckless wars drummed up by media hysteria. And, yet, here we are with the war drums beating again -- this time against Iran.



Audio said:


> btw: to which one do you belong? Seems you left out "_out of work immigrants trying to enforce shariah down our throats while on welfare_". So im curious where do you see yourself then.



Notice I didn't say anything about you in my post.

But how ironic that, in trying to categorize me, you ended up categorizing yourself!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Audio

Developereo said:


> Notice I didn't say anything about you in my post.
> 
> But how ironic that, in trying to categorize me, you ended up categorizing yourself!



Hahahahaha, i love the way you spin things! 

But seriously...there are more categories then 3 or (my) 4th included. It is silly to generalise like that.



Developereo said:


> The bombing of Dresden, the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- all have been 'justified' because the victors write the rules.



That was war? World War II? fyi the Germans started first with the policy of attacking cities when Hitler diverted the Luftwaffe from attacking the RAF (they had them beat almost) airfields to city bombings.

I dont know how you in all honesty can draw parallels from today to then.....Seems you guys love to go into the past for flawed examples and skew them anyway you like in order for them to fit somehow into today.

Also comparing the brutality of WWII with WoT is just delusional.
If Americans did like what the Germans and Russians did to each other in such numbers and in such severity......i wonder how much crying you would do then....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Developereo

Audio said:


> Also comparing the brutality of WWII with WoT is just delusional.



Read the OP.

It says specifically that, since the terrorists don't obey the rules of war, this should be the green light for the US military to abandon the Geneva Conventions and start nuking civilian centers.

Lt. Dooley has gone off the deep end.



Audio said:


> If Americans did like what the Germans and Russians did to each other in such numbers and in such severity......i wonder how much crying you would do then....



I am not saying Americans are unique; this kind of brutality is done by many countries. However, since this discussion is about a course at a US military college, that's why I gave those examples.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## vsdoc

The US is a world power. Unlike regional powers, their reach and involvement and engagement goes way beyond the region they live in.

For the past 3+ decades the US has been fighting wars all over the world.

And All their recent wars have been with Islamic countries.

The first time their mainland was attacked (Pearl Harbor was not mainland US) was by Islamists.

It is truly a falling out of some proportion because it is the US who was cosying up to most of the Islamic world since the end of WWII.

Iran. Pakistan. The UAE.

So it is no coincidence then today that the US believes that it is at war with something that goes beyond national boundaries.

Crosses ethnicities and race.

Crosses setarian lines.

What is common to all that strife is a particularly intolerant world view of Islam.

The US and its agencies are highly astute. They know well that in Islam there are deepfracture lines that cannot/will not heal.

Their wargaming does not lose sight of the fact that there is no such thing as a unified Islamic opposition.

They all hate the US. But more often than not they hate each much more.

It is therefore part of the exercise to bring down an enemy ideology.

By pitting the enemy within. By leveraging fault lines.

Not by doing something to rally all under one flag against a common enemy.

But if that were to happen - what then?

So you throw up different scenarios and take each to their logical conclusion. Shooting holes in each. Till a few remain with the least number of holes in them.

Can you fault the US on that?

The US knows it is in a war with an opposing ideology. With a huge number of followers.

But equally there are many who do not subscribe to the opposing ideology.

The trick lies in defeating the ideology without alienating the non-subscribers and pushing them over the edge.

The trick for the other side also lies in not polarizing into a situation where the lines get blurred between a moderate Muslim justifiably proud of his faith and beliefs and radical one who is willing to kill for the same, intolerant of the same for others.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Audio

Developereo said:


> Read the OP.
> 
> It says specifically that, since the terrorists don't obey the rules of war, this should be the green light for the US military to abandon the Geneva Conventions and start nuking civilian centers.
> .



This going on the premise that the civilian centers would host refuge and provide support to the terrorists. The article is pretty clear this was meant as an end-game scenario. I presume after some monstrosity would have happened originating from the Muslim world.

There is also no military gain one could achieve by nuking Mecca/Medina unless the entire governing aparatus _(which would now be openly hostile and providing support to terrorism_) was there in session or something similar.

Also the lecture and its material were removed/confiscated on grounds of hate speech by the US military themselves and the lecturere is under investigation.

Its a dumb lecture anyway....but the populist view of some of the members made the debate about it reach page 32...


----------



## Irfan Baloch

the debate continues

@Developereo re your comment


> I divide the 'West' into three groups of people.
> 
> -- radical fanatics (in three piece suits) who are no better than the Islamist fanatics.
> 
> -- mainstream ordinary people who are basically fair minded, despite being brainwashed by the fanatics above.
> 
> -- the dregs of society who are losers in real life and who try to bolster their self-esteem by beating their chests behind Western achievements



I mean 

the third kind are ready made fodder for all the present and future campaigns "of freedom" in the world where ever Uncle Sam decides to park his military.
the second kind indeed is being constantly bombarded with movies, talk shows, articles and surveys and what not and thee are effects of this campaign. you will really have to struggle to find an unqualified condemnation of any sort of atrocities committed by the Americans. 
on the contrary you will find tributes to the people who have made their own video footage of killing and collecting body parts of civilians as trophies.

so you will see
certain kind of individuals who deny that such tendency exists also maybe only few moments ago they would have praised the pilots of Apache that rained bullets on Civilians in Baghdad killing children and Associated press reporter

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## King Solomon

Irfan Baloch said:


> I mean
> 
> the third kind are ready made fodder for all the present and future campaigns "of freedom" in the world where ever Uncle Sam decides to park his military.
> the second kind indeed is being constantly bombarded with movies, talk shows, articles and surveys and what not and thee are effects of this campaign. you will really have to struggle to find an unqualified condemnation of any sort of atrocities committed by the Americans.
> on the contrary you will find tributes to the people who have made their own video footage of killing and collecting body parts of civilians as trophies.


 
You're heavily generalizing along with Developereo. I can tell that the first and third are a minority. Only a minority who often tends to bolster online due to their introvertness, but are chickens in real life.

In the end, its freedom of expression. You cannot really change someone who has been conditioned to hate something at a young age.



Irfan Baloch said:


> the debate continues
> so you will see
> certain kind of individuals who deny that such tendency exists also maybe only few moments ago they would have praised the pilots of Apache that rained bullets on Civilians in Baghdad killing children and Associated press reporter


 
Iraq is now a free society. The shia majority has gained power. Do you want Saddam in power in Iraq who killed so many shias based on sectarian hatred?

You have to thank USA for maintaining stability in the middle east between Sunni and Shia influence. Otherwise, if the balance tilted in any one's favour the result would be bloodshed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Irfan Baloch

S-19

thanks for your honest comments

although revolting but actually supporting what I and developereo are saying

as far as thanking US for Iraqi invasion is concerned.. well I wont sink to such levels to thank America for the mass killing of Iraqis. the warcrimes that are reported by the American soldiers themselves when they blew the whistle dont show the American decision to invade Iraq as a favour to its people.


----------



## King Solomon

Irfan Baloch said:


> S-19
> 
> thanks for your honest comments
> 
> although revolting but actually supporting what I and developereo are saying
> 
> as far as thanking US for Iraqi invasion is concerned.. well I wont sink to such levels to thank America for the mass killing of Iraqis. the warcrimes that are reported by the American soldiers themselves. when they blew the whistle.



You're welcome. Well, about Iraq, it is just that the one or two incidents of killing by US soldiers that gets reported widely. We should not generalize the whole US military due to those one or two isolated incidents.

As per reported statistics, the majority of civilians were killed due to the shia-sunni sectarian war from 2005-2010. If people kill themselves you cannot do anything really. Earlier it was saddam doing it but now it has taken the form of suicide bombing and other terrorism. But overall, stability has been achieved now after US troops left.

Most civilians were killed *before* the war due to the sanctions and food shortage. But why do you blame the US for that? Other muslim countries like pakistan supported the sanctions against iraq after the gulf war. Could US have sanctioned iraq if not for the support of neighbouring muslim countries?

I would laud the US for cleaning up Iraq from the mess that it was. I hope Iraq can prosper economically again and successfully exploit its natural resources to its advantage. I don't see why people hate US. It is the muslims who killed muslims why blame US for that?


----------



## gambit

Developereo said:


> Translation: when moderate Muslims fail to control the militants, we will nuke Mecca.
> Analogy: when moderate black Africans fail to control Somali piracy, we will nuke Kinshasa.
> Analogy: when moderate latinos fail to control drug trafficking, we will nuke Sao Paolo.


When any of these failures allowed a 'regime change', then we will explore those options. You cannot avoid the reality that contestants to governmental powers and authority can end in either a 'regime change' or dissolution of a country. With the latter, there is no need for US to 'nuke' anyone.



Developereo said:


> A distinction without difference: in the end, it's all about power. What matters is that, in all these cases, criminal gangs operate with impunity by taking advantage of weak governments' lawlessness.


You are correct, there is no difference in that there would be a 'regime change'. For the worse.



Developereo said:


> *Exactly which government does AQ control?* Any more so that the drug cartels? As mentioned above, AQ operate in lawless regions of various countries; exactly as drug dealers and pirates do. Drug cartels control large parts of Mexico and Colombia which are no-go zones for regular law enforcement and military. Many elements of these governments are believed to be working for the drug lords. Somali pirates wield similar power in Somalia.
> 
> By Dooley's (and your) analogy, this ongoing situation (several decades in the case of drugs) should justify drawing up scenarios to nuke major metropolitan areas in South America.


The goal of Al-Qaeda is not merely to control but to *CHANGE* the Islamic world into the image of what Al-Qaeda believe that world should be.

Your arguments regarding the drug cartels and the pirates continues to fail and reveals your intellectual dishonesty.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## King Solomon

Audio said:


> This going on the premise that the civilian centers would host refuge and provide support to the terrorists. The article is pretty clear this was meant as an end-game scenario. I presume after some monstrosity would have happened originating from the Muslim world.
> 
> There is also no military gain one could achieve by nuking Mecca/Medina unless the entire governing aparatus _(which would now be openly hostile and providing support to terrorism_) was there in session or something similar.
> 
> Also the lecture and its material were removed/confiscated on grounds of hate speech by the US military themselves and the lecturere is under investigation.
> 
> Its a dumb lecture anyway....but the populist view of some of the members made the debate about it reach page 32...


 
Are you sure there is no military gain to be achieved by nuking Mecca/Medina? That is one of the strategic points of 2 billion of mankind. Nuking both the cities would immediately start civil war in pro-western muslim governments. The option is surely on the table as a contingency.


----------



## gambit

Developereo said:


> Read the OP.
> 
> It says specifically that, since the terrorists don't obey the rules of war, this should be the green light for the US military to abandon the Geneva Conventions and start nuking civilian centers.
> 
> Lt. Dooley has gone off the deep end.


One of the goals of Islamic terrorists is to convince the muslim warriors to obey an alternate set of rules of war. Part of that process is to act in accordance to those alternate rules. And it looks like the arguments are convincing enough in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even some here approved of those alternate rules by framing those tactics as 'asymmetric warfare'.

And who says only 'the West' can play with words...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## King Solomon

DRaisinHerald said:


> Hah, you're comparing apples with roses. Taliban are not common citizens; it's an organisation who's main purpose is kill kill kill.
> 
> The civilians of Iraq, be they Sunni Muslim or Shia Muslim, are are bunch of people which don't deserve to be killed like dogs by the "saviour" USA. God is not cruel buddy, please don't Slander him by saying he's supporting a Terrorist.



Terrorist? Looks like you are confusing the term. You generalize the whole US military based on the isolated actions of one or two haters. God is definitely supporting and blessing the USA for war against terrorism. That is why you see terrorists losing everywhere and USA winning. The sooner you come to terms with this fact and stop supporting terrorists - the better it is. On one hand you support your army's action against taliban terrorists on the other hand you oppose same actions of US military just because US is an infidel secular nation. This double-facedness isn't going to get you anywhere. Now your arguments about Iraq are already answered here:



S-19 said:


> You're welcome. Well, about Iraq, it is just that the one or two incidents of killing by US soldiers that gets reported widely. We should not generalize the whole US military due to those one or two isolated incidents.
> 
> As per reported statistics, the majority of civilians were killed due to the shia-sunni sectarian war from 2005-2010. If people kill themselves you cannot do anything really. Earlier it was saddam doing it but now it has taken the form of suicide bombing and other terrorism. But overall, stability has been achieved now after US troops left.
> 
> Most civilians were killed *before* the war due to the sanctions and food shortage. But why do you blame the US for that? Other muslim countries like pakistan supported the sanctions against iraq after the gulf war. Could US have sanctioned iraq if not for the support of neighbouring muslim countries?
> 
> I would laud the US for cleaning up Iraq from the mess that it was. I hope Iraq can prosper economically again and successfully exploit its natural resources to its advantage. I don't see why people hate US. It is the muslims who killed muslims why blame US for that?


----------



## VCheng

Developereo said:


> Translation: when moderate Muslims fail to control the militants, we will nuke Mecca.
> Analogy: when moderate black Africans fail to control Somali piracy, we will nuke Kinshasa.
> Analogy: when moderate latinos fail to control drug trafficking, we will nuke Sao Paolo....................



The analogy breaks down simply because only one of the groups above has actually attacked USA (hint: it is not the Somalis or the Latinos). Further, the "moderates" who support the militants by condoning the attacks themselves by definition may not be all that "moderate".

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

VCheng said:


> The analogy breaks down simply because only one of the groups above has actually attacked USA (hint: it is not the Somalis or the Latinos). Further, *the "moderates" who support the militants by condoning the attacks themselves by definition may not be all that "moderate".*


And it was no other than the University of Jordan who found that out. Al-Qaeda's unpopularity was because of its affiliate members' tactics (not strategy) of killing fellow muslims, so much that Osama bin Laden himself had to notice and advised restraints despite his contempt for the muslim governments he wish to overthrow. So all al-Qaeda or similar militant Islamist groups have to do is focus their violence on non-muslims and eventually these 'moderates' will change their minds about al-Qaeda.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Malik Usman

Shame on every muslim and specially the Saudis and Arab World.........they are the most favorinig countries of US (That's why they allowed them to maintain their Air bases in their countries..i.e. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE etc.).....specially the Saudi Kingdom.....they are totally on the instructions of Americans.


----------



## Zabaniyah

^That's kinda rich coming from someone living in Kuwait  

But then, they all have their priorities.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juice

Aryan_B said:


> Oh give me a break mate. Look at the outrage in America at the slightest comment anti Jewish is sufficient to get you censored. Imagine if they had run a course about eliminating Israel or Jews.



Lol, you always claim it is illegal in the west to whine about the Jooos hiding in your closet, but you live in the west, do it all the time, aren't in jail. Who's a liar now?



Developereo said:


> Do you suppose there is a course at JFSC that "presents an alternative point of view" to nuke major population centers in Africa to discourage Somali pirates?
> 
> The subtext here is that the enemy is all Muslims and Islam itself, hence targeting Muslim holy places will form a credible deterrent. Courses like this reinforce that view of the conflict. This is not idle speculation; the repeated incidents of anti-Muslim bigotry by active duty personnel do not happen in a vacuum.



What you never bring up, is "why" is there this anti-muslim feeling? I always notice when some one disscusses why people are anti-semetic, the jew haters always bring up "why are the jews hated?"

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juice

Icarus said:


> Well, my friend we just reached the point that Einstein mentioned in his famous quote:
> 
> "I don't know what WWIII will be fought with but the fourth will be fought with sticks and stones"
> 
> In a universe that we just imagined, the war, should it go nuclear, will result in Nuclear Holocaust and there will be more casualties from the post-Nuke Det radiation then from the explosions themselves, crops will fail, radiation poisoning will spread, economies will collapse, international market will be in ruin, the fuel supply will be reduced to a trickle (We just nuked the Iranians/Saudis), society as we know it will collapse and there will be anarchy. Like I said, we would be thrown back into the middle ages.



Not sure about the middle ages, but society would not resemble anything we know (and I some how doubt it would be an improvement)


----------



## Juice

pakdefender said:


> It takes time to develop an oil filed , while there may be large reserves they are not being actively used for extracting oil , no corporation will put its money on a field that they cannot extract oil from so these reserves cannot be just brought online over night. Sudden shortage oil will be disastrous for the western war machine.



Ever heard of the strategic reserve?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juice

pakdefender said:


> How do you know we dont have ICBMs , we might be having them but just not declared
> 
> US presence is near by in Afghansitan which can be targeted and US presence is in all Gulf states which will be targetted. If we move our misslies to Saudi Arabia then we'll be able engage even more targets from there.



Move them how? And with no interdiction?


----------



## Juice

Aryan_B said:


> I find it interesting that the only two "Americans" trying to defend this course run by American is a Vietnamese and Pakistani American.
> 
> Are you guys trying to prove your loyalties to America by being more Americans than Americans to justify your loyalties. Cos methinks the lady doth complaineth too much



I'm "American" American, (with mostly British heritage). If it came down to it, I would fight beside and lay my life down for Vcheng and Gambit, that's how we roll here.

(sorry for so many post, I'm reading from mid-point, replying to post in order)



Aryan_B said:


> Oh come of it sycophantic Indian (and I know there are many of you out there) Can you imagine if the course was about eliminating Hindus of this earth?
> 
> Don't even try justifying what is unjustifiable



But it ISN'T! Why is that?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## lem34

Juice said:


> I'm "American" American, (with mostly British heritage). If it came down to it, I would fight beside and lay my life down for Vcheng that's how we roll here.



Of course you would Juice. But the point we make and are critical of Cheng is that he is too often tries to tell Pakistan what is best for it as a Pakistanis. As long as it is accepted that that is from an American perspective we do not take issue.

btw lay down your life is a bit of emotional drama for you is it not? lol 



Juice said:


> But it ISN'T! Why is that?



Because they are American proxies. Why would you want to eliminate your proxies lol

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## regular

Juice said:


> Move them how? And with no interdiction?


We already taken care of those interdictions....My friend so what U gotta say now??......


----------



## Juice

vsdoc said:


> I understand. So do the Americans. It is part and parcel of war gaming.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that there will be over a billion very pissed off people worldwide. That is not in question. Their collective response is.
> 
> Institutional, Military and Asymmetric. Social and Cultural and Economic. Civilian - unfriendly and friendly collateral. That is all part of war gaming.
> 
> If you do not understand your enemy and predict his moves, all you can do when the time comes is depend on training and react situationally. Most advanced military powers do not find that adequate anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> The midle east oil fields will not be damaged. Not by the Americans. Nor allowed to the locals by means of sabotage. Two Gulf Wars as well as the 10 year Iran-Iraq war before should have shown you how it can and will be done.
> 
> The military might of the enemy will be neutralized first. As will Pakistani nukes in the first wave. Followed by tactical bombing of utilities and infrastructure. Power grids, railroads, bridges, dams, water works, refineries, fuel depots.
> 
> If that does not bring the countries to their knees, this would in all probability then be followed by nukes on small to medium sized urban pockets. Casualties sub-hundred thousand, timed and executed to limit fallout (seasonal, wind patterns, etc.).
> 
> 
> 
> Occupation will not be the objective. Quarantine will.
> 
> Neighboring countries will be forced to close their borders and forcibly prevent survivors from streaming across to escape the fallout.
> 
> No nation will stand in the way of American nukes and the victim nation.
> 
> 
> 
> This will all have been played out in the war gaming. Pakistan nukes will be neutralized before the first wave. Not just by American special forces, but by Russian and Chinese ones in tandem.
> 
> Worst case scenario, Pakistan does get a few off and India gets hit. Collateral friendly casualties in a few hundreds of thousands. Maybe millions. Not near to an existential threat. It will never come close to that were Pakistan to start assembling. NFU is a doctrine. It is not the word of God. That will also be part of the war gaming.
> 
> Please remember that neither will India stand in the way, nor will the US back off for India. Its the price we pay for where we are and who our neighbor is. It is also something that the Indian war machine will be war gaming for in its own way for when and if the time comes.
> 
> As will the Israelis and the Chinese.
> 
> There will be no uninterested parties here.



Is it OK to say you scare me more than the mindless Jihadis? (thinking foes are ALWAYS more dangerous, I hope we stay allies)



Aryan_B said:


> Of course you would Juice. But the point we make and are critical of Cheng is that he is too often tries to tell Pakistan what is best for it as a Pakistanis. As long as it is accepted that that is from an American perspective we do not take issue.
> 
> btw lay down your life is a bit of emotional drama for you is it not? lol
> 
> 
> Because they are American proxies. Why would you want to eliminate your proxies lol



I was in the army, Aryan, we were trained that way (and yes, good drama)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Juice

Aryan_B said:


> Of course you would Juice. But the point we make and are critical of Cheng is that he is too often tries to tell Pakistan what is best for it as a Pakistanis. As long as it is accepted that that is from an American perspective we do not take issue.
> 
> btw lay down your life is a bit of emotional drama for you is it not? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they are American proxies. Why would you want to eliminate your proxies lol



Yeah, a little dramatic, but trust me , true. We are trained to fight that way.

(oops, double post. Is there any way to fix this?)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lem34

Juice said:


> Yeah, a little dramatic, but trust me , true. We are trained to fight that way.
> 
> (oops, double post. Is there any way to fix this?)



Trust you on anything Juice but your army- no way

Just delete it mate it happens occasionally I think- do not know why

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Developereo

Irfan Baloch said:


> the third kind are ready made fodder for all the present and future campaigns "of freedom" in the world where ever Uncle Sam decides to park his military.
> the second kind indeed is being constantly bombarded with movies, talk shows, articles and surveys and what not and thee are effects of this campaign. you will really have to struggle to find an unqualified condemnation of any sort of atrocities committed by the Americans.
> on the contrary you will find tributes to the people who have made their own video footage of killing and collecting body parts of civilians as trophies.
> 
> so you will see
> certain kind of individuals who deny that such tendency exists also maybe only few moments ago they would have praised the pilots of Apache that rained bullets on Civilians in Baghdad killing children and Associated press reporter



The whole tactic of the hate-mongers is to erode the edges of acceptability so that what was taboo yesterday becomes controversial today, and what is controversial today becomes an alternative platform tomorrow. Like Dooley here, there are right wing loonies like Michele Malkin who actually proposed WW2-style internment camps. Mind you, this is for American Muslims, so you can well imagine what they propose for the rest of Muslims.

The whole media hysteria about Obama being Muslims was surreal. To think that America had fallen so far from its ideals to have leading mainstream personalities baying for blood like that was incredible. That is when Colin Powell stood out from the crowd and showed his titanium moral fiber.


----------



## Developereo

gambit said:


> When any of these failures allowed a 'regime change', then we will explore those options. You cannot avoid the reality that contestants to governmental powers and authority can end in either a 'regime change' or dissolution of a country. With the latter, there is no need for US to 'nuke' anyone.



We are not doing a wild goose chase here where you keep shifting goalposts and erecting straw-man arguments in a desperate bid to sustain your premise. The issue here is Dooley's course and the promotion of a certain ideology to US soldiers in an official setting.

Where in Dooley's course does he list 'regime change' as a prerequisite for his scenario?



gambit said:


> The goal of Al-Qaeda is not merely to control but to *CHANGE* the Islamic world into the image of what Al-Qaeda believe that world should be.



Again, the issue here is not AQ's goal, but the role of mainstream Muslims. Drug traffickers have a 'goal' to have the whole world as their client. So what?



gambit said:


> Your arguments regarding the drug cartels and the pirates continues to fail and reveals your intellectual dishonesty.



It seems that way to you only because you constantly duck the issue, given that it is indefensible.



gambit said:


> One of the goals of Islamic terrorists is to convince the muslim warriors to obey an alternate set of rules of war. Part of that process is to act in accordance to those alternate rules. And it looks like the arguments are convincing enough in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even some here approved of those alternate rules by framing those tactics as 'asymmetric warfare'.



Weaker opponents always resort to alternative means, especially when they operate outside the law. Once again, drug lords and pirates fit that label and, once again, there is no contingency for the US military to follow suit and start nuking their cities in retaliation.


----------



## Developereo

VCheng said:


> The analogy breaks down simply because only one of the groups above has actually attacked USA (hint: it is not the Somalis or the Latinos).



I suggest you educate yourself on the death toll from drug-related crimes in the US. Even discounting crimes committed by US nationals and focusing solely on fatalities caused by direct operatives of the Latin American drug syndicates, the numbers will absolutely *dwarf* terrorism any day of the week.



VCheng said:


> Further, the "moderates" who support the militants by condoning the attacks themselves by definition may not be all that "moderate".



Given your use of quotes around the word moderates, I won't dignify that with a reply.


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Developereo said:


> I suggest you educate yourself on the death toll from drug-related crimes in the US. Even discounting crimes committed by US nationals and focusing solely on fatalities caused by direct operatives of the Latin American drug syndicates, the numbers will absolutely *dwarf* terrorism any day of the week.



That is very true.

Terrorism is a horrifying thing no doubt, however the chances of the average person on Earth dying from a terrorist attack are very low. The average person is a thousand times more likely to die in a car accident.

The fear of terrorism has been blown out of all proportion (relative to the death toll), ironically by the same people who always say "If we show fear then the terrorists have won".

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Developereo

Juice said:


> What you never bring up, is "why" is there this anti-muslim feeling?



Because it is a red herring. Of course we all know why there is anti-Muslim feeling. There is anti-black feeling, anti-Jewish feeling, anti-Hindu feeling, and anti-latino feeling, among others. Despite all the education, there is always an element of bigotry which surfaces when society comes under stress. The difference is that all these other anti- feelings are quickly brought under control and people don't act them out.

In the case of Muslims, the media and certain opportunistic elements have used the terrorism issue to stoke the bigotry and to channel people's xenophobia towards one group as an acceptable outlet.

Again, no one has any issue with combating criminals; it is the wholesale generalizations and stereotyping that we are talking about here.



Chinese-Dragon said:


> That is very true.
> 
> Terrorism is a horrifying thing no doubt, however the chances of the average person on Earth dying from a terrorist attack are very low. The average person is a thousand times more likely to die in a car accident.
> 
> The fear of terrorism has been blown out of all proportion (relative to the death toll), ironically by the same people who always say "If we show fear then the terrorists have won".



Well, I don't want to compare it to accidents or diseases because they are a different category. But the situation with drug dealers who specifically terrorize entire neighborhoods into submission and who wield enormous influence over weak governments in developing countries, is an apt comparison.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KS

S-19 said:


> You have to thank USA for maintaining stability in the middle east between Sunni and Shia influence. Otherwise, if the balance tilted in any one's favour the result would be bloodshed.



This I agree. Without the external [relatively] stabilizing force in the region the Middle East would be doing what it does best - fight amongst yourself.


----------



## King Solomon

Developereo said:


> Because it is a red herring. Of course we all know why there is anti-Muslim feeling. There is anti-black feeling, anti-Jewish feeling, anti-Hindu feeling, and anti-latino feeling, among others. Despite all the education, there is always an element of bigotry which surfaces when society comes under stress. The difference is that all these other anti- feelings are quickly brought under control and people don't act them out.
> 
> In the case of Muslims, the media and certain opportunistic elements have used the terrorism issue to stoke the bigotry and to channel people's xenophobia towards one group as an acceptable outlet.
> 
> Again, no one has any issue with combating criminals; it is the wholesale generalizations and stereotyping that we are talking about here.



The (conventional) muslim culture is vastly different compared to Jewish, latino, hindu or blacks. The nature of the culture matters.

eg. These groups don't insist their women should be oppressed in black veils from head to toe or the ridiculous headcover. These groups don't carry out suicide bombing and terrorist attacks. These groups do not insist on keeping big, unshaven beards while going to workplace. These groups do not give ridiculous fatwas for example "women must not touch bananas/carrots because....(lets spare this part) and people must drink co-worker's breast milk". These groups do not call for their norm (eg Sharia law) to be implemented in US or Europe. These groups don't tell people to kill all infidel kafirs. These people do not forbid women to go to work. These people do not hail Osama and other terrorists. Should I go on...? 

The fact remains that these (funny and ridiculous) characteristics make Muslims a laughing stock in the civilized world. Frankly, I don't blame them at all. Any person with common sense will realize how ridiculous the above stuffs sounds

Note: The above "features" are in no way supported by Koran/Islam. So, I'm *not blaming Islam here* but the conventional Mullah-twisted way it is practiced nowadays. This fil.th needs to be cleaned A.S.A.P.



KS said:


> This I agree. Without the external [relatively] stabilizing force in the region the Middle East would be doing what it does best - fight amongst yourself.



Indeed. People do not realize that without US Naval presence in the Gulf, Middle east would be up in flames by now with shia-sunni war and no Jew would be left in the world.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Developereo

S-19 said:


> The (conventional) muslim culture is vastly different compared to Jewish, latino, hindu or blacks. The nature of the culture matters.
> 
> eg. These groups don't insist their women should be oppressed in black veils from head to toe or the ridiculous headcover. These groups don't carry out suicide bombing and terrorist attacks. These groups do not insist on keeping big, unshaven beards while going to workplace. These groups do not give ridiculous fatwas for example "women must not touch bananas/carrots because....(lets spare this part) and people must drink co-worker's breast milk". These groups do not call for their norm (eg Sharia law) to be implemented in US or Europe. These groups don't tell people to kill all infidel kafirs. These people do not forbid women to go to work. These people do not hail Osama and other terrorists. Should I go on...?



Please don't expose your ignorance of facts.

You started talking of conventional culture and then quickly launched into a rant about extremists.

There are extremist groups in all religions that advocate precisely the things you mentioned. Just because the global media doesn't highlight them and you are ignorant of them does not change reality.


----------



## KS

Developereo said:


> Because it is a red herring.



No it is not. The _suspicion or wariness_ about Islam [I would not say hate, atleast till now] is mostly because of the resurgence of Islamic terrorism worldwide either on a I_cant_live_with_you notion based secessionist movements or the more general Islam vs rest jihadi mentality. It is because of the ultra-radical, intolerant form of Islam that is preached in neighbourhood madarsahs and young minds falling prey to it and writing away their lives for the greater glory of Allah and all the promised bounties. It is because of the continued attempt to blast subways, towers, night clubs, cities - sometimes succesfully unfortunately, based on a deviant religious agenda. These are some of the reasons that come to my mind immediately why there is a rise in Islamophobia around the world and why it was not there even some 3 decades ago.

Ofcourse history too plays a part like in subcontinent. But that is far less a contributory factor than the reasons listed above.



Developereo said:


> In the case of Muslims, the media and certain opportunistic elements have used the terrorism issue to stoke the bigotry and to channel people's xenophobia towards one group as an acceptable outlet.



I dont think it has become acceptable, atleast for now..but the risk of it becoming acceptable is very real if that oft proclaimed group called "moderate muslims" fail to raise their hands and take control of this religion that is fast becoming the private _jagir_ of the radicals. Non-muslims judge Islam by what Muslims do and not what the Muslims claim Islam is. The faster the likes of you understand that and stop rationalizing those acts by Islamic radicals the better for all - specially for you.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## King Solomon

Developereo said:


> Please don't expose your ignorance of facts.
> 
> You started talking of conventional culture and then quickly launched into a rant about extremists.
> 
> There are extremist groups in all religions that advocate precisely the things you mentioned.



Then why is it that it is only the Islamic extremists who always manage to gather hundreds of thousands of followers?

Personally, I've come across many of them during my stay on the forum...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KS

Developereo said:


> There are extremist groups in all religions that advocate precisely the things you mentioned. Just because you are ignorant of them does not change reality.



There are extremist groups in all religions - but none of them hold sway over the majority moderate mass the way radicals in Islam do. In other words, in no religion is the majority moderate group so powerless, voiceless, static as Islam. There are a variety of reasons for that phenomenon.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Vinod2070

Oscar said:


> depends on the value of lives..
> The deterrence is just that..
> The Israelis fight for each life they call their own..
> *On the other hand.. Pakistanis hold little value for life when it comes to religion...whats losing 50 million when such a catastrophe has occurred.*


 
Not really true. This may look fine on an anonymous internet forum, when the shyt hits the roof things will be totally different.

The best hope is it doesn't come to pass.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## KS

Oscar said:


> On the other hand.. Pakistanis hold little value for life when it comes to religion...whats losing 50 million when such a catastrophe has occurred.



Just a hypothetical scenario - Will you willingly sacrifice your children, just one, for all the religion in the world ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Developereo

KS said:


> No it is not. The _suspicion or wariness_ about Islam [I would not say hate, atleast till now] is mostly because of the resurgence of Islamic terrorism worldwide either on a I_cant_live_with_you notion based secessionist movements or the more general Islam vs rest jihadi mentality. It is because of the ultra-radical, intolerant form of Islam that is preached in neighbourhood madarsahs and young minds falling prey to it and writing away their lives for the greater glory of Allah and all the promised bounties. It is because of the continued attempt to blast subways, towers, night clubs, cities - sometimes succesfully unfortunately, based on a deviant religious agenda. These are some of the reasons that come to my mind immediately why there is a rise in Islamophobia around the world and why it was not there even some 3 decades ago.



The fanaticism and hatred exists in all groups. Examples have been shown elsewhere of Jewish, Christian and Hindu leaders indoctrinating their followers in similar manner of hatred.

Like I wrote, the only difference is that the other fanatics get their agenda implemented through established militaries and their followers wear military uniforms while carrying out their crusade. These fanatics wear expensive suits and promote their hatred carefully couched in analyses and policy papers. The rank-and-file fanatics do their killing in uniform and are, sometimes, dismissed as 'rogue elements'. Other times, they escape all punishment entirely.



KS said:


> I dont think it has become acceptable, atleast for now..but the risk of it becoming acceptable is very real if that oft proclaimed group called "moderate muslims" fail to raise their hands and take control of this religion that is fast becoming the private _jagir_ of the radicals. Non-muslims judge Islam by what Muslims do and not what the Muslims claim Islam is. The faster the likes of you understand that and stop rationalizing those acts by Islamic radicals the better for all - specially for you.



The bigots will justify their hatred regardless of what Muslim do or don't do. This canard of holding the entire community responsible until everyone behaves is neither original nor subtle. It has been used throughout history to rationalize bigotry against various groups, as I wrote earlier.

Please read the earlier posts in this thread where the issue of generalization and stereotyping has been discussed.



S-19 said:


> Then why is it that it is only the Islamic extremists who always manage to gather hundreds of thousands of followers?



What I wrote above about others doing their crusade in uniform.


----------



## KS

Developereo said:


> The fanaticism and hatred exists in all groups. Examples have been shown elsewhere of Jewish, Christian and Hindu leaders indoctrinating their followers in similar manner of hatred.



You have not shown anything. Just the wild assumption that the sovereign armies of non_muslim countries are the terrorist entities because of the absence/minimal presence of the non-state actors actively and physically targeting Muslims in their respective religions. In essence you have already decided you need to do a equal-equal and if not the armies then you will go the police force of the respective countries and if not the police then the doctors.

BTW there might be extremist groups in all religions - but none of them hold sway over the majority moderate mass the way radicals in Islam do. In other words, in no religion is the majority moderate group so powerless, voiceless,toothless & static as Islam. There are a variety of reasons for that phenomenon.



Developereo said:


> The bigots will justify their hatred regardless of what Muslim do or don't do. .



That [lame] excuse does not cut ice anymore. You can't say that unless the moderate Muslim first controls the radicals in his religion or even attempts to do so. This inaction on the part of the moderate Muslims on the premise _"even if we control the extremists the west will hate us..so let's not control our extremist brothers"_ is highly self-serving and dis-ingenous to say the least.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Developereo

KS said:


> You have not shown anything. Just the wild assumption that the sovereign armies of non_muslim countries are the terrorist entities because of the absence/minimal presence of the non-state actors actively and physically targeting Muslims in their respective religions. In essence you have already decided you need to do a equal-equal and if not the armies then you will go the police force of the respective countries and if not the police then the doctors.



Maybe not in this thread -- I don't remember. But there have been other threads where US, Israeli and other soldiers have been exposed proclaiming their motivation for joining the military. Any number of policy experts and military strategists have well-publicized, firm ideological beliefs guiding their proposals.

Again, this is not a 'Muslim' claim; it is well accepted that policy strategists push particular agendas.



KS said:


> BTW there might be extremist groups in all religions - but none of them hold sway over the majority moderate mass the way radicals in Islam do. In other words, in no religion is the majority moderate group so powerless, voiceless,toothless & static as Islam. There are a variety of reasons for that phenomenon.



On the contrary, the Zionist war drums have been used most effectively to launch a number of wars, and more on the way. The only difference is that these extremists are media-savvy and their agenda suits you, so you don't see them as extremists.



KS said:


> That [lame] excuse does not cut ice anymore. You can't say that unless the moderate Muslim first controls the radicals in his religion or even attempts to do so. This inaction on the part of the moderate Muslims on the premise _"even if we control the extremists the west will hate us..so let's not control our extremist brothers"_ is highly self-serving and dis-ingenous to say the least.



No, as I wrote, this canard is a standard play of bigots throughout history. Its use against Muslims is only the latest incarnation. I suggest you learn some history about the stereotyping and treatment of various minority groups throughout history.

Been there, done that.


----------



## Vinod2070

S-19 said:


> The mere *threat* of an international coalition-led war will result in a total collapse of pakistan's government and the state. Same goes for all Middle east government including SA which governs Mecca/Medina. No need to go further than that.
> 
> I am inclined to think Russia and China would aid US because it would be a matter of international security.
> 
> *Perhaps such an action would be possible after a major nuke-based terrorist attack which simultaneously targets many nations.*


 
The threshold will be much lower than that.

Just one mass casualty terrorist attack on USA (or a friendly Western country) could result in this scenario.

There have been enough indications that this (to deter the AQ against another mass casualty attack with WMDs, with the Mecca Madina scenario) has been the official US policy since 2001 and AQ was explicitly warned about this.

In fact, probably Iraq was was likely to convince AQ about the seriousness of the threat and not really about WMDs as we all know.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KS

Developereo said:


> Maybe not in this thread -- I don't remember. But there have been other threads where US, Israeli and other soldiers have been exposed proclaiming their motivation for joining the military. Any number of policy experts and military strategists have well-publicized, firm ideological beliefs guiding their proposals.
> 
> Again, this is not a 'Muslim' claim; it is well accepted that policy strategists push particular agendas.



Highly disingenuous statement. Islamic extremists doing what they do as a 'policy' and aberrant soldiers succumbing to pressures of war are two different scenarios. Not that it is excusable in the latter case, they should be held accountable according to the law of land, but exceptions dont become rule.

Taking a crude example, American military generals don't promise the marines 72 hoors for every Muslim killed.

The motive American soldiers or Israeli soldiers join their military can at best be compared to the motive why Muslim soldiers join their respective armies - take for example PA Army - Iman, Taqwa, Jihad fi sabillilah. For the uninformed canadian this may look like the recruiting phrase of some jihadi organization. So can they go about saying that soldiers in PA are uniformed jihadis ? Is this not what your logic entails ?




Developereo said:


> On the contrary, the Zionist war drums have been used most effectively to launch a number of wars, and more on the way. The only difference is that these extremists are media-savvy and their agenda suits you, so you don't see them as extremists.



Oh no..not the Zionist boogeyman.

The [bitter] truth is in no religion is the majority moderate group so powerless, voiceless,toothless & static as in Islam. There is no use in chiding me for saying that.




Developereo said:


> No, as I wrote, this canard is a standard play of bigots throughout history. Its use against Muslims is only the latest incarnation.



Rather than suggesting me to do something, which is nothing but a polished way of deflecting, just understand that moderate Muslims have not . till now, put up their hand to be counted. So the basic premise of saying even if moderate muslims...does not arise in the first place. 

The first step in solving any problem lies in accepting there is a problem. So far you [Muslims] have not even crossed the first phase. All the best for that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Developereo

KS said:


> Highly disingenuous statement. Islamic extremists doing what they do as a 'policy' and aberrant soldiers succumbing to pressures of war are two different scenarios. Not that it is excusable in the latter case, they should be held accountable according to the law of land, but exceptions dont become rule.



Perhaps you didn't bother reading. The policy analyses and strategy papers advocating slaughter of Muslims are not done by 'aberrant' soldiers. They are by mainstream hate mongers who go under the more respectable labels of 'analysts' and 'strategists'.



KS said:


> Taking a crude example, American military generals don't promise the marines 72 hoors for every Muslim killed.
> 
> The motive American soldiers or Israeli soldiers join their military can at best be compared to the motive why Muslim soldiers join their respective armies - take for example PA Army - Iman, Taqwa, Jihad fi sabillilah. For the uninformed canadian this may look like the recruiting phrase of some jihadi organization. So can they go about saying that soldiers in PA are uniformed jihadis ? Is this not what your logic entails ?



Then you really don't know what you are talking about.

Videos were posted of US soldiers and their chaplain discussing why their mission is Jesus' mission. Soldiers driving around Afghanistan with the banner 'Jesus killed Mohammed'. There are similar accounts of Israeli soldiers who believe they are doing God's work.



KS said:


> Oh no..not the Zionist boogeyman.



Again, I will tell you to educate yourself about the power of the Zionist lobby in the West, and you will refuse to face the truth. These expositions are not done by (gasp!) Muslims, but Jewish, Christian and atheist Westerners.



KS said:


> Rather than suggesting me to do something



That's OK. I didn't expect you to dare challenge your preconceptions anyway.


----------



## KS

Developereo said:


> Perhaps you didn't bother reading. The policy analyses and strategy papers advocating slaughter of Muslims are not done by 'aberrant' soldiers. They are by mainstream hate mongers who go under the more respectable labels of 'analysts' and 'strategists'.



Pardon me for not bothering to read -- you don't post anything new anyway. Just the same old drivel which by now I could say without looking into the post.

Coming the point, the role of these "analysts" and "strategists" is overstated as is anyone who role is just theorizing...still for arguments sake, all these "analysts" and "strategists" have failed to create a respectable terrorist group, one that can rival the size and extent of the middle level jihadist groups. These "analysts" and "strategists" have failed to make a group of US civvies drive a 747 into the Burj Dubai. The "analysts" and "strategists" have failed to convince some 20-somethings to martyr themselves for the greater glory of Jesus in a subway tube or night club etc.

All that remains are conjectures, lame equal-equals and defense of the indefensible .

Do I have to read it everytime ?




Developereo said:


> Videos were posted of US soldiers and their chaplain discussing why their mission is Jesus' mission. Soldiers driving around Afghanistan with the banner 'Jesus killed Mohammed'. There are similar accounts of Israeli soldiers who believe they are doing God's work.



Don't tell me that a significant portion of Pakistan Army soldiers or Saudi arabian soldiers don't believe that they are in the service of Islam - in their armies. Don't tell me that each unit in PA doesn't have its Maulvis. Indian Army does. Religion has always been a powerful motivating force for soldiers and every nation -except perhaps Communist nations- makes use of it.

Re, the actions of soldiers describes above - exceptions as already mentioned. 




Developereo said:


> Again, I will tell you to educate yourself about the power of the Zionist lobby in the West, and *you will refuse to face the truth*. These expositions are not done by (gasp!) Muslims, but Jewish, Christian and atheist Westerners.



I refuse to face your [rather silly] opinion. It is by no means the truth.




Developereo said:


> That's OK. I didn't expect you to dare challenge your preconceptions anyway.



Lets come back to the original point - that unless the moderate muslims put up their hands and will to be counted, there is no sense in chiding the non-muslims for exhibiting a wariness about Islam. It will be there and the blame goes squarely onto the radicals for taking the initiative and the moderates for failing to stem the tide. 

For solving a problem, accepting that the problem exists if of utmost importance. I wish you could see it.For your sake, for Islam's sake.


----------



## Vinod2070

Developereo said:


> I divide the 'West' into three groups of people.
> 
> -- radical fanatics (in three piece suits) who are no better than the Islamist fanatics.
> 
> -- mainstream ordinary people who are basically fair minded, despite being brainwashed by the fanatics above.
> 
> *-- the dregs of society who are losers in real life and who try to bolster their self-esteem by beating their chests behind Western achievements (which they themselves had little to do with).*


 
The last bit is interesting.

So Westerner "losers" should not be taking pride in the Western achievements.

But its OK for Muslims (whose ancestors were converted much much later) anywhere to be taking pride in the "achievements" of Arabs or Moors?


----------



## KS

Vinod2070 said:


> So Westerner "losers" should not be taking pride in the Western achievements.
> 
> But its OK for Muslims (whose ancestors were converted much much later) anywhere to be taking pride in the "achievements" of Arabs or Moors?



Who said anything about having a uniform yard stick ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vinod2070

LeGenD said:


> *Point is that attack on holy cities will open the Pandora box. You being an Indian will not understand this.*
> 
> Attacking holy cities will be 'crossing the red line' of tolerance of all Muslims worldwide. Their is no justification for this kind of action.


 
We won't?

Some of our holiest sites (and they were of your ancestors' as well) have been destroyed by your Islamic heroes.

The "red line" is nothing but a geedad bhabhki.

Mongols destroyed thousands of mosques, destroyed whole Muslim cities, killed Muslims in many millions and small garrisons of them continued ruling over millions of Muslims.

They even considered destorying Mecca once but didn't execute.

So, while this is not something that any of us wants, let's not exaggerate.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zabaniyah

^Mongols weren't Muslims.


----------



## Vinod2070

Zabaniya said:


> ^Mongols weren't Muslims.



Exactly! They weren't.



LeGenD said:


> By that time, Israel and India will be done with.



Even if they had nothing to do with the war!

Leaving aside the fact that you have no capability to do this (and will be toast if you tried), this is exactly what so many of you are fuming against on this thread!

What is acceptable and respectable for you, is not for your adversaries?



> *Overseas muslims will come in to the picture. *Countries such as UK and India are specially vulnerable due to sizable populace of muslims in these countries. And quarantine cannot be imposed by a single aggressor on such a grand scale unless the rest of the world cooperates.



No! The vast majority of "overseas Muslims" will be busy doing what survival instincts will make them do.

Get out of harm's way. And do *"what it takes"* to be away from harm's way.

You are frankly assuming too much. And too wrong.




Irfan Baloch said:


> dont be too smug. a good part of our eastern neighbourhood would already be made into a radioactive glass (as you put it) before we done for.
> 
> you have very cleverly narrowed down the discussion to Pakistan only. I admire your style , no surprise there when you have two Indian flags. Pakistan's destruction by America will be an Indian dream but that dream will be in a radiological wasteland of the whole subcontinent. we will take you down with us.
> 
> *yea we cant hit the bully but we will break the nose and teeth of the smirking India.*


 
Always love this great thought. Sadly for you...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## KS

Vinod2070 said:


> No! The vast majority of "overseas Muslims" will be busy doing what survival instincts will make them do.
> 
> Get out of harm's way. And do *"what it takes"* to be away from harm's way.



Isn't it too religiously sanctioned...something by the name of Taqiyya ?

Looks like all contingencies are covered.


----------



## Vinod2070

vsdoc said:


> The eyes read, but the mind sees what it wants to.
> 
> S-19 said nothing of the sort. Neither are any of us.
> 
> You yourself have spelled out the limit of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
> 
> Namely, deterrence against India.
> 
> Fullstop.
> 
> Please leave the pre-emptive retaliatory bombing of Israel to the domain it belongs to.
> 
> Juvenile chest thumping.
> 
> A threat without the means lacks credibility.
> 
> It also makes others acutely aware of your own vulnerability.


 
It still remains interesting how many of them rage against India (Hindus) and Israel (Jews) and want to do to them exactly what they are so much railing against.

Only they have no capability.

They are lucky their adversaries are so much saner than them. 



KS said:


> Isn't it too religiously sanctioned...something by the name of Taqiyya ?
> 
> Looks like all contingencies are covered.


 
Some of them will try that.

Most will go the whole hog. Survival instincts made their ancestors do something earlier.

The same survival instincts will make them do the opposite now.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Audio

Developereo said:


> Please read the earlier posts in this thread where the issue of generalization and stereotyping has been discussed.



This should be your signature. A disclaimer in every thread you post.


----------



## Developereo

KS said:


> I refuse to face your [rather silly] opinion. It is by no means the truth.



This is your refrain throughout. Since your interest here is not to look at facts objectively, but merely to reinforce your preconceptions, then there is no point in debating anything.

The historical record is there; it will remain inviolate whether you chose to accept it or dismiss it as 'opinion'.


----------



## Audio

Developereo said:


> This is your refrain throughout. Since your interest here is not to look at facts objectively, but merely to reinforce your preconceptions, then there is no point in debating anything.



Yeah, facts.....they're a bitch.



Developereo said:


> Like I wrote, the only difference is that the other fanatics get their agenda implemented through established militaries and their followers wear military uniforms while carrying out their crusade. These fanatics wear expensive suits and promote their hatred carefully couched in analyses and policy papers. The rank-and-file fanatics do their killing in uniform and are, sometimes, dismissed as 'rogue elements'. Other times, they escape all punishment entirely.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Banglar Lathial

It is the Muslims' fault that they don't act concertedly against the devil USA which has already through numerous acts displayed its evil nature. Even on this forum, many Middle Easterners think that the Muslim world is not yet ready to 'stand on its feet' if they declare USA a devil, severe all relations and then prepare for total warfare taking war to mainland USA, with massive mobilization and industrialization, calling up hundreds of millions of active troops, deploying in excess of 600 AIP/nuclear submarines (as examples), in excess of 240 long range bombers, acquiring in excess of 48 bases in the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean and Central America, Mexico and neighbouring regions. 

Muslim world should have already prepared for and declared total war on a scale that the former Soviet Union at its peak multiplied by 4 could never do. This analysis would obviously be strongly rejected by the more well informed as well as the ill informed people alike for a variety of reasons, including misinformation campaigns propagated by Jewish media (including on the Internet) to project an "invincible" image of the USA, personal political ideologies, lack of information about the reality, lack of foresight, knowledge of strategic affairs, and most importantly due to a lack of ability to separate the wheat from the chaff. 

Again, the fault lies with the Muslims for not mobilizing by the hundreds of millions against the devil and their associates.


----------



## Coltsfan

Banglar Lathial said:


> It is the Muslims' fault that they don't act concertedly against the devil USA which has already through numerous acts displayed its evil nature. Even on this forum, many Middle Easterners think that the Muslim world is not yet ready to 'stand on its feet' if they declare USA a devil, *severe all relations and then prepare for total warfare taking war to mainland USA, with massive mobilization and industrialization, calling up hundreds of millions of active troops, deploying in excess of 600 AIP/nuclear submarines (as examples), in excess of 240 long range bombers, acquiring in excess of 48 bases in the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean and Central America, Mexico and neighbouring regions. *



What troops? Your so called troops haven't accomplished one thing of significance in modern history.......... (unless you count the Islamic terrorism attacks)



> Muslim world should have already prepared for and declared total war on a scale that the former Soviet Union at its peak multiplied by 4 could never do. This analysis would obviously be strongly rejected by the more well informed as well as the ill informed people alike for a variety of reasons, including misinformation campaigns propagated by Jewish media (including on the Internet) to project an "invincible" image of the USA, personal political ideologies, lack of information about the reality, lack of foresight, knowledge of strategic affairs, and most importantly due to a lack of ability to separate the wheat from the chaff.
> 
> *Again, the fault lies with the Muslims for not mobilizing by the hundreds of millions against the devil and their associates.*



Its not for lack of trying......... troops of 6 nations mobilized against the little devil and got their @$$ handed to them........ 

Stop smoking pot and get real...........

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

Developereo said:


> We are not doing a wild goose chase here where you keep shifting goalposts and erecting straw-man arguments in a desperate bid to sustain your premise. The issue here is Dooley's course and the promotion of a certain ideology to US soldiers in an official setting.
> 
> Where in Dooley's course does he list 'regime change' as a prerequisite for his scenario?


In slide 7, Dooley's model supposed that Islam is 'now' an ideology demanding export and by violent means if necessary. So the phrasing 'regime change' is unnecessary.



Developereo said:


> Again, the issue here is not AQ's goal, but the role of mainstream Muslims. Drug traffickers have a 'goal' to have the whole world as their client. So what?


Drug traffickers are not agents of states. They are subordinates to states, meaning they are subjects to laws they did not create and must obey. Their disobedience in no way negate their nominal status. They do not claim to speak 'for' the citizens of their countries, as in 'liberating' those citizenry like Al-Qaeda and assorted militant muslim groups are claiming.



Developereo said:


> It seems that way to you only because you constantly duck the issue, given that it is indefensible.
> 
> Weaker opponents always resort to alternative means, especially when they operate outside the law. Once again, drug lords and pirates fit that label and, once again, there is no contingency for the US military to follow suit and start nuking their cities in retaliation.


I did not 'duck' your arguments. I debunked them completely. If anything, your equation of criminals with no overriding political and ideological sense with religious fanatics grant us all the latitude to equate 'militant' Islam with 'moderate' Islam because both shares the same religion.


----------



## VCheng

As this back-and-forth argument rages on _ad nauseum_, the important point to note is that the training of US military personnel will continue to be as complete and comprehensive as possible. It is simply too important to be let influenced by international whims and political correctness.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Developereo

VCheng said:


> As this back-and-forth argument rages on _ad nauseum_, the important point to note is that the training of US military personnel will continue to be as complete and comprehensive as possible. It is simply too important to be let influenced by international whims and political correctness.



A typical Zen-master post which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

Developereo said:


> A typical Zen-master post which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.



You may not be able to see my point, but it is valid: US military personnel training must continue to include preparation for all possible scenarios, including the ones that were originally the topic here.


----------



## Developereo

gambit said:


> In slide 7, Dooley's model supposed that Islam is 'now' an ideology demanding export and by violent means if necessary. So the phrasing 'regime change' is unnecessary.



That is your self-serving reading of the text. Lots of things can be exported, drugs included, without official support.



gambit said:


> Drug traffickers are not agents of states. They are subordinates to states, meaning they are subjects to laws they did not create and must obey. Their disobedience in no way negate their nominal status. They do not claim to speak 'for' the citizens of their countries, as in 'liberating' those citizenry like Al-Qaeda and assorted militant muslim groups are claiming.



Again, an invalid extrapolation from the flawed, self-serving interpretation above. Your entire 'argument' is circular where you make assumptions _a priori_ to support your conclusions.



gambit said:


> I did not 'duck' your arguments. I debunked them completely. If anything, your equation of criminals with no overriding political and ideological sense with religious fanatics grant us all the latitude to equate 'militant' Islam with 'moderate' Islam because both shares the same religion.



Strawman arguments don't debunk anything. They merely highlight the desperation of the debater.



VCheng said:


> You may not be able to see my point, but it is valid: US military personnel training must continue to include preparation for all possible scenarios, including the ones that were originally the topic here.



Is Dooley's course suspended or continuing?


----------



## VCheng

Developereo said:


> .............
> 
> 
> Is Dooley's course suspended or continuing?



It is suspended pending conclusion of the investigations. This is called "due process" I think, but what do I know? I am only a Zen master.


----------



## Developereo

VCheng said:


> It is suspended pending conclusion of the investigations. This is called "due process" I think



Precisely!

Which makes your post (quoted below) irrelevant in the context of this topic.



VCheng said:


> As this back-and-forth argument rages on _ad nauseum_, the important point to note is that the training of US military personnel will continue to be as complete and comprehensive as possible. It is simply too important to be let influenced by international whims and political correctness.



The issue here is not the broader training of US forces (did anyone ever claim all US military colleges had closed down?), but the specific course by Dooley.


----------



## VCheng

Developereo said:


> ............
> The issue here is not the broader training of US forces (did anyone ever claim all US military colleges had closed down?), but the specific course by Dooley.



I can assure you that the concepts contained in Dooley's course will remain in one form or another to be taught, no matter who teaches them. Even his course is only one part of an entire process that prepares for all scenarios, and concentrating on just one course is like counting leaves on one tree while forgetting about the forest. (Oh wait, is that something only a Zen master would say? Oh Gosh Darn!  )

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Developereo

VCheng said:


> I can assure you that the concepts contained in Dooley's course will remain in one form or another to be taught, no matter who teaches them. Even his course is only one part of an entire process that prepares for all scenarios, and concentrating on just one course is like counting leaves on one tree while forgetting about the forest.



The 'concepts' being objected to have been ordered removed from all course material. Are you saying the US military is deliberately ignoring and violating a direct order by the CJCS?



Arabian Knight said:


> The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recently ordered the entire U.S. military to scour its training material to make sure it doesn&#8217;t contain similarly hateful material, a process that is still ongoing.





VCheng said:


> (Oh wait, is that something only a Zen master would say? Oh Gosh Darn!  )



Only a Zen master who has had a few too many magic mushrooms. Better check the ingredients on that steak sauce, man!


----------



## VCheng

Developereo said:


> The 'concepts' being objected to have been ordered removed from all course material. Are you saying the US military is deliberately ignoring and violating a direct order by the CJCS?.............



The removal was pending completion of the investigation. Has it been completed? I must have missed the final report if it indeed has been.


----------



## Developereo

VCheng said:


> The removal was pending completion of the investigation.



The sentence I quoted above includes no such qualifier. It says the CJCS ordered the removal of 'similarly hateful material'. Period.

Now, it is possible that some instructors might try to play fast and loose and hide behind semantic distinctions, but the intent of the CJCS's order is quite clear. And unconditional.


----------



## VCheng

Developereo said:


> The sentence I quoted above includes no such qualifier. It says the CJCS ordered the removal of 'similarly hateful material'. Period.
> 
> Now, it is possible that some instructors might try to play fast and loose and hide behind semantic distinctions, but the intent of the CJCS's order is quite clear. And unconditional.



The CJCS order looks to remove "hateful material", which of course is the right thing to say and do. The matter is going to be handled gingerly since a witch hunt in the military would expose the present administration to a counter-attack by the Republicans for harming the military in the run up to the election.

Much will be said and done with that political situation in mind, with regards to this incident, so please know which portions to take with a pinch of salt (psychedelic mushrooms extra, by choice only, of course  ), which might not be readily apparent.


----------



## SQ8

KS said:


> Just a hypothetical scenario - Will you willingly sacrifice your children, just one, for all the religion in the world ?



Depends on the cause.. 
Suicide is not an option.. but when it comes to protecting the religion.. and not that distorted version taught to these fanatics.. but the original message best understood... 
yes.. Ill probably sacrifice myself before I have had the chance to have children.
Against all aggressors.. be it even from a seminary 50km from my house.


----------



## Juice

Developereo said:


> Because it is a red herring. Of course we all know why there is anti-Muslim feeling. There is anti-black feeling, anti-Jewish feeling, anti-Hindu feeling, and anti-latino feeling, among others. Despite all the education, there is always an element of bigotry which surfaces when society comes under stress. The difference is that all these other anti- feelings are quickly brought under control and people don't act them out.
> 
> In the case of Muslims, the media and certain opportunistic elements have used the terrorism issue to stoke the bigotry and to channel people's xenophobia towards one group as an acceptable outlet.
> 
> Again, no one has any issue with combating criminals; it is the wholesale generalizations and stereotyping that we are talking about here.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't want to compare it to accidents or diseases because they are a different category. But the situation with drug dealers who specifically terrorize entire neighborhoods into submission and who wield enormous influence over weak governments in developing countries, is an apt comparison.



I noticed when you qouted me, you were careful to leave of the "anti-zionist" portion.


----------



## Developereo

Juice said:


> I noticed when you qouted me, you were careful to leave of the "anti-zionist" portion.



No, you mentioned Jews, not Zionists.

There is a world of difference between the two: there are Jews who are not Zionists, and Arabs who are. In the US, the evangelical Christian and atheist Zionists outnumber the Jewish Zionists.

Judaism is a religion, Zionism is an extremist ideology. Zionism is to Judaism, what radical Islamism is to Islam.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## King Solomon

Developereo said:


> No, you mentioned Jews, not Zionists.
> 
> There is a world of difference between the two: there are Jews who are not Zionists, and Arabs who are. In the US, the evangelical Christian and atheist Zionists outnumber the Jewish Zionists.
> 
> Judaism is a religion, Zionism is an extremist ideology. Zionism is to Judaism, what radical Islamism is to Islam.


*
Zionism is a form of Jewish nationalism. One of the difference between Zionism and Islamist fanaticism is that Zionists only wanted a small, barren piece of desert in their historic homeland where a secular, tolerant society involving all races/religion would grow - whereas, Islamist fanatics want all land from north-western China to Morocco where they seek to impose their barbaric sharia law and oppression.*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Developereo

S-19 said:


> Zionism is a form of Jewish nationalism. One of the difference between Zionism and Islamist fanaticism is that Zionists only wanted a small, barren piece of desert in their historic homeland where a secular, tolerant society involving all races/religion would grow - whereas, Islamist fanatics want all land from north-western China to Morocco where they seek to impose their non-Islamic barbaric sharia law and oppression.



Since you clearly don't know the ideology or history of Zionism, and its implementation by Israel, it's best not to speak. At its core, Zionism elevates Jewish rights above others and legitimizes any action to achieve its goals, including terrorism.


----------



## lem34

S-19 said:


> Zionism is a form of Jewish nationalism. One of the difference between Zionism and Islamist fanaticism is that Zionists only wanted a small, barren piece of desert in their historic homeland where a secular, tolerant society involving all races/religion would grow - whereas, Islamist fanatics want all land from north-western China to Morocco where they seek to impose their barbaric sharia law and oppression.



Mate you have admitted that normally your sources are western. Most western media is under Zionist control. Though your heart is in the right place and you do research I suggest you look at several different sources before you make your mind up on Zionism and other matters that you comment on.



Developereo said:


> Since you clearly don't know the ideology or history of Zionism, and its implementation by Israel, it's best not to speak. At it's core, Zionism elevates Jewish rights above others and legitimizes any action to achieve its goals, including terrorism.



I was trying to be polite. I have a lot of time for S19 because he has shown he has an open mind

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## r3alist

> that Zionists only wanted a small, barren piece of desert in their historic homeland where a secular, tolerant society involving all races/religion would grow




so if thats all zionism wanted why exactly has israel become a Judaic supremacist, anti-goy, discriminatory and expansionist nation that it is today?

zionist interpretations differ, plenty israelis harbor expansionist and aggressive views.

they believe in their divinely mandated right to the land of the middle east, their religion teaches them of their superiority.


----------



## SQ8

S-19 said:


> Zionism is a form of Jewish nationalism. One of the difference between Zionism and Islamist fanaticism is that Zionists only wanted a s*mall, barren piece of desert* in their historic homeland where a secular, tolerant society involving all races/religion would grow - whereas, Islamist fanatics want all land from north-western China to Morocco where they seek to impose their barbaric sharia law and oppression.



so if they ended up ejecting its occupants.. taking over unjustly.. its was all ok to establish this "_Kingdom of heaven_"(not going too well is it now??).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## King Solomon

Aryan_B said:


> Mate you have admitted that normally your sources are western. Most western media is under Zionist control. Though your heart is in the right place and you do research I suggest you look at several different sources before you make your mind up on Zionism and other matters that you comment on.


*

Mate, I've looked at both palestine side of story and Israel's. While the palestine side takes part in desperate propaganda which are disproved easily, the Israeli side is actually based on reasonable facts. I would also suggest you to look at both sources (both israeli and palestine) and then come to a conclusion.*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lem34

S-19 said:


> Mate, I've looked at _*both*_ palestine side of story and Israel's. While the palestine side takes part in desperate propaganda which are disproved easily, the Israeli side is actually based on reasonable facts. I would also suggest you to look at both sources (both israeli and palestine) and then come to a conclusion.



I am in that case surprised at the conclusions that you have come to. Maybe you should take unto account the sophistication of the subtle subliminal nature propaganda from Zionist sources and maybe not so polished version from Palestinians. But i do suggest you continue your search if you feel it appropriate.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

S-19 said:


> *
> 
> Mate, I've looked at both palestine side of story and Israel's. While the palestine side takes part in desperate propaganda which are disproved easily, the Israeli side is actually based on reasonable facts. I would also suggest you to look at both sources (both israeli and palestine) and then come to a conclusion.*





> Don't become a mere recorder of facts, but try to penetrate the mystery of their origin.



Suddenly all these _reasonable facts_ have started to pop out in favour of Israel..
began after the 1970's I think... 
Funny how you can speak ***** against all in the world, Islam, Christianity and all that is dear to those religions in the name of "_freedom of speech_" in the west
yet you say one word against the Holocaust and you are bound to go to jail and be declared the worst of humanity.
And yet, some would have us belief that things are fair and free in the land of the free.


----------



## Juice

Oscar said:


> Suddenly all these _reasonable facts_ have started to pop out in favour of Israel..
> began after the 1970's I think...
> Funny how you can speak ***** against all in the world, Islam, Christianity and all that is dear to those religions in the name of "_freedom of speech_" in the west
> yet you say one word against the Holocaust and you are bound to go to jail and be declared the worst of humanity.
> And yet, some would have us belief that things are fair and free in the land of the free.



This has been disscussed to death. It is NOT illegal to talk about or question the Holocaust in the US, have done it many times in Uni. (such as the fact that Bergen-Belsen was NOT a death camp, the bad conditions that the Brits found there were due to a typhus outbreak, compounded by lack of food and medical supplies due to chaotic wartime conditions). Of course, running around spouting theories about Zionist plots and evil Jooos will probably not get you invited to the best parties.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

Juice said:


> This has been disscussed to death. It is NOT illegal to talk about or question the Holocaust in the US, have done it many times in Uni. (such as the fact that Bergen-Belsen was NOT a death camp, the bad conditions that the Brits found there were due to a typhus outbreak, compounded by lack of food and medical supplies due to chaotic wartime conditions). Of course, running around spouting theories about Zionist plots and evil Jooos will probably not get you invited to the best parties.



I said west.._ good that the US has made an exception... for now as there are many debates open to this and that will be upto congress to implement._
Laws against Holocaust denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Juice said:


> This has been disscussed to death. It is NOT illegal to talk about or question the Holocaust in the US, have done it many times in Uni. (such as the fact that Bergen-Belsen was NOT a death camp, the bad conditions that the Brits found there were due to a typhus outbreak, compounded by lack of food and medical supplies due to chaotic wartime conditions). Of course, running around *spouting theories about Zionist plots* and evil Jooos will probably not get you invited to the best parties.



See a star filled sky .. find the big dipper.. yes you are being paranoid.
See only the stars that make the big dipper.. and you have little choice but to see conspiracy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

Oscar said:


> I said west.._ good that the US has made an exception... for now as there are many debates open to this and that will be upto congress if implement..........._


_

USA is NOT Europe. Congress won't be implementing any such laws. Heck, even flag burning is protected as a form of expression._

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Audio

Oscar said:


> I said west.._ good that the US has made an exception... for now as there are many debates open to this and that will be upto congress if implement._
> Laws against Holocaust denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Funnily all those laws come packaged in the grander scheme of how genocide and crimes against humanity are not to be mocked about and similar....it is not only about the Holocaust per se as you would like to make us believe.

jews rule us, right?

p.s.: how you guys skew things lol...did you actually read the wiki article you quoted? Or just saw a convenient title and thought "_here i got some ammo, that'll show dem infidels_"?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## King Solomon

Oscar said:


> Suddenly all these _reasonable facts_ have started to pop out in favour of Israel..
> began after the 1970's I think...
> Funny how you can speak ***** against all in the world, Islam, Christianity and all that is dear to those religions in the name of "_freedom of speech_" in the west
> yet you say one word against the Holocaust and you are bound to go to jail and be declared the worst of humanity.
> And yet, some would have us belief that things are fair and free in the land of the free.



*US is NOT Europe! There is a difference between the two. US and UK follows the common law system compared to the civil law followed in rest of Europe. Civil law is more based on Roman law and dependent on comprehensive codes whereas common law is based on the doctrine of precedent. Thus, naturally, freedom is not respected as much in a common law legislative structure.

I would say, the US and UK represents democratic values, freedom and equity more than the rest of the western world. Definitely much more than any so-called "islamic" country in the world. *


----------



## SQ8

Audio said:


> Funnily all those laws come packaged in the grander scheme of how genocide and crimes against humanity are not to be mocked about and similar....it is not only about the Holocaust per se as you would like to make us believe.
> 
> jews rule us, right?
> 
> p.s.: how you guys skew things lol...did you actually read the wiki article you quoted? Or just saw a convenient title and thought "_here i got some ammo, that'll show dem infidels_"?



Apparently you did not.. dem infidels on a denial mode per se?


----------



## King Solomon

Oscar said:


> Apparently you did not.. dem infidels on a denial mode per se?



He was pointing out to the law in Germany and some other countries which bans "incitement of hatred", on whose domain denial of holocaust is included.


----------



## VCheng

Oscar said:


> Apparently you did not.. dem infidels on a denial mode per se?



Only dem infidels on the wrong side of the pond:

The first line in the said article reads: _"Holocaust denial is illegal in a number of *European countries*"_. Why drag USA into it?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SQ8

S-19 said:


> *US is NOT Europe! There is a difference between the two. US and UK follows the common law system compared to the civil law followed in rest of Europe. Civil law is more based on Roman law and dependent on comprehensive codes whereas common law is based on the doctrine of precedent. Thus, naturally, freedom is not respected as much in a common law legislative structure.
> 
> I would say, the US and UK represents democratic values, freedom and equity more than the rest of the western world. Definitely much more than any so-called "islamic" country in the world. *



Which are not the focus.. or is the only defence left against promoting genocide,one sided bias and accounts is to target the "barbaric" "Islamic" countries and "those" Muslims..
Muslims elsewhere are free.. they eat swine and drink wine.. that is freedom..that is moderation.. that is the Islam that we "freedom lovers" like.



VCheng said:


> Only dem infidels on the wrong side of the pond:
> 
> The first line in the said article reads: _"Holocaust denial is illegal in a number of *European countries*"_. Why drag USA into it?



I dragged the whole west.. you saved the USA from my wrath.. good for you.


----------



## VCheng

Oscar said:


> ......
> I dragged the whole west.. you saved the USA from my wrath.. good for you.



No, good for _you_, since your plans have something to do with USA, or are they on hold?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## King Solomon

Oscar said:


> Which are not the focus.. or is the only defence left against promoting genocide,one sided bias and accounts is to target the "barbaric" "Islamic" countries and "those" Muslims..
> Muslims elsewhere are free.. they eat swine and drink wine.. that is freedom..that is moderation.. that is the Islam that we "freedom lovers" like.


*
And how is that so?

And you have the wrong conception of freedom... Yes, by freedom, Muslims will be able to drink wine, eat swine etc. but the genuine muslims who have a good heart would be differentiated as they will chose to avoid wine, swine by their own accord. Nobody would be forced to not drink wine./swine and everybody would show their true self without hypocrisy. Everybody would live without fear of being forced to do something. A concept which is most closely reflected by US, UK and to a lesser degree - the rest of EU.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Developereo said:


> That is your self-serving reading of the text. Lots of things can be exported, drugs included, without *official support.*


And it precisely that support that determine the response.



Developereo said:


> Again, an invalid extrapolation from the flawed, self-serving interpretation above. Your entire 'argument' is circular where you make assumptions _a priori_ to support your conclusions.


Nonsense. Prove to everyone that the Mexican and Colombian drug cartels speaks for those governments.



Developereo said:


> Strawman arguments don't debunk anything. They merely highlight the desperation of the debater.


The drug cartels and the pirates are *YOUR* strawmen arguments. Not mine. You brought on that analogy, you need to support it. Prove to everyone that the Mexican and Colombian drug cartels speaks for those governments and their people.



Developereo said:


> Is Dooley's course suspended or continuing?


I do not care. The removal was for political correctness, not because of its inherent value in encouraging strategic thinking about threats. If Al-Qaeda destroyed New York City with a nuclear weapon, have no doubt that such an attack would earn the muslim world a commensurate response. Look at it this way, the muslims should consider themselves lucky that only two buildings and only about 3000 Americans dead. Instead of looking at how Americans view Islam and muslims, may be you should look at how easy it is for muslims to become radicalized and do something about it, in your own way. Extremism begets extremism in response. It is not enough that the muslims governments do whatever they have to do to secure the security of the country, they need the assistance of ordinary muslims to weed out radical Islam at the personal level and so far Americans are not seeing that effort. Wrongly or rightly, we are not seeing it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

VCheng said:


> No, good for _you_, since your plans have something to do with USA, or are they on hold?


 
On hold .. 


S-19 said:


> *
> And how is that so?
> 
> And you have the wrong conception of freedom... Yes, by freedom, Muslims will be able to drink wine, eat swine etc. but the genuine muslims who have a good heart would be differentiated as they will chose to avoid wine, swine by their own accord. Nobody would be forced to not drink wine./swine and everybody would show their true self without hypocrisy. Everybody would live without fear of being forced to do something. A concept which is most closely reflected by US, UK and to a lesser degree - the rest of EU.*



Yet this hypocrisy you speak of is reflected in the sort of Muslims revered in the west..
Albiet.. I admit there are exceptions.. and Justice prevails more in the west.
But if Government and Media choose to highlight people who openly critique the very jist of Islam yet wish to identify themselves under a Muslim banner.. then you have ground for somebody like me to have an acerbic attitude towards such institutions.


----------



## VCheng

Oscar said:


> On hold ..



I wish you luck, and success in your future plans (as long as you don't act like a sm.......!  )



Oscar said:


> ......... and Justice prevails more in the west.............



Justice and the rule of law make for a more equitable society, no matter what religion or lack of it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

VCheng said:


> I wish you luck, and success in your future plans* (as long as you don't act like a sm.......!  )*
> 
> 
> 
> Justice and the rule of law make for a more equitable society, no matter what religion or lack of it.



I hate boring people.. 
once in a while.. its good to get up and go Jack lemmon on everybody..


----------



## VCheng

Oscar said:


> I hate boring people..
> once in a while.. its good to get up and go Jack lemmon on everybody..



Did you just call me boring? :O

Things won't be the same without me after a hundred odd posts or so. 

Back to the topic: The course by Dooley is a fizzle to make any broad points about a non-existent US war with Islam.


----------



## Juice

Jack Lemmon? Lol, You date yourself, sir!


----------



## King Solomon

Oscar said:


> Yet this hypocrisy you speak of is reflected in the sort of Muslims revered in the west..
> Albiet.. I admit there are exceptions.. and Justice prevails more in the west.
> But if Government and Media choose to highlight people who openly critique the very jist of Islam yet wish to identify themselves under a Muslim banner.. then you have ground for somebody like me to have an acerbic attitude towards such institutions.



*The job of media is to highlight any odd happenings. That is what makes a news, a "news" and worthwhile at that.

You see news about murders, rapes and other crimes. Makes you feel the world is a sick, sick place. However, you do not see the media highlighting that 99.99% of the people led a peaceful life yesterday. Why? Because this is nothing odd and is everyday happening. Not worthy of news.

The fact that radical muslims are highlighted by the media is just a reflection of this characteristic which applies to ALL kind of "news" - starting from murders, theft to radical extremism. Why just blame a specific sector of news (relating to radical terrorists) and classify the whole media as "biased"?*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Audio

Oscar said:


> Apparently you did not.. dem infidels on a denial mode per se?



Wauw....speechless. 

Laws are written with having all genocides, attrocities of all totalitarian regimes in mind.

You make it sound as if Jews wrote those laws, and that they say if you negate, belittle holocaust you will go to jail.
While in reality, if you talk about all genocides in a minimalist, apologetic ways you get a fine, not jail.

Key word is *all*. not only Holocaust like you want us to believe. but i guess you read what you want to, nevermind that what you read and exposed is maybe 10% of the words written on that page.

You pro.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

Juice said:


> Jack Lemmon? Lol, You date yourself, sir!



Just loved him in Mister roberts and the Odd couple.

Him.. Fonda.. Walter Mathau.. never age.

On topic:

Dooley's firing may not end it..
for it has triggered a storm.. albeit unwittingly.
and made the option for quicker peace.. just that bit harder

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

Oscar said:


> ...........
> On topic:
> 
> Dooley's firing may not end it..
> for it has triggered a storm.. albeit unwittingly.
> and made the option for quicker peace.. just that bit harder



Add to that the traditional volatility of an election year, and things are likely to get more difficult before they start to improve.


----------



## SQ8

VCheng said:


> Add to that the traditional volatility of an election year, and things are likely to get more difficult before they start to improve.



Which brings the off topic.. but perhaps relevant question.. now that you have inadvertently asked it.
Whats obama's ploy now? Osama is dead.. the economy still sucks relatively.. and his "change" has not been all that it was hoped to be.. The tea party may still be warring amongst themselves.. But what foriegn policy gambit(not u gambit).. can change the dynamics of the upcoming race?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lem34

Oscar said:


> Which brings the off topic.. but perhaps relevant question.. now that you have inadvertently asked it.
> Whats obama's ploy now? Osama is dead.. the economy still sucks relatively.. and his "change" has not been all that it was hoped to be.. The tea party may still be warring amongst themselves.. But what foriegn policy gambit(not u gambit).. can change the dynamics of the upcoming race?



Perhaps we should look at what AIPAC are demanding or pushing. They have a successful record in getting what they want out of American foreign policy


----------



## VCheng

Oscar said:


> Which brings the off topic.. but perhaps relevant question.. now that you have inadvertently asked it.
> Whats obama's ploy now? Osama is dead.. the economy still sucks relatively.. and his "change" has not been all that it was hoped to be.. The tea party may still be warring amongst themselves.. But what foriegn policy gambit(not u gambit).. can change the dynamics of the upcoming race?



There can be many things domestically, but the one that concerns Pakistan the most is perhaps Ayman Al-Zwahiri.


----------



## Developereo

gambit said:


> And it precisely that support that determine the response.



No, it doesn't. You keep shifting goalposts because you can't sustain your argument. There is plenty of corruption and bribery in Latin America which is underwritten by the drug cartels. It allows them to operate unhindered in vast tracts of each country. There need not be overt control of the official government. This is exactly analogous to the situation with AQ.



gambit said:


> Nonsense. Prove to everyone that the Mexican and Colombian drug cartels speaks for those governments.



More disingenuousness building upon your false premise above. Once again, for which government does AQ speak? You bring up these strawman arguments to deflect from the main topic which is Dooley's admonition to abandon Geneva Conventions just because the opponents do so.



gambit said:


> The removal was for political correctness



So, according to you, refusing to declare 'total war on Islam' is 'political correctness'?



gambit said:


> If Al-Qaeda destroyed New York City with a nuclear weapon, have no doubt that such an attack would earn the muslim world a commensurate response. Look at it this way, the muslims should consider themselves lucky that only two buildings and only about 3000 Americans dead. Instead of looking at how Americans view Islam and muslims, may be you should look at how easy it is for muslims to become radicalized and do something about it, in your own way. Extremism begets extremism in response. It is not enough that the muslims governments do whatever they have to do to secure the security of the country, they need the assistance of ordinary muslims to weed out radical Islam at the personal level and so far Americans are not seeing that effort. Wrongly or rightly, we are not seeing it.



Repetitive rant not worth responding.


----------



## gambit

Developereo said:


> No, it doesn't. You keep shifting goalposts because you can't sustain your argument. *There is plenty of corruption and bribery in Latin America which is underwritten by the drug cartels.* It allows them to operate unhindered in vast tracts of each country. There need not be overt control of the official government. This is exactly analogous to the situation with AQ.


This is *YOUR* goalposts. Not mine. The drug cartels are neither states nor agents of states. State incompetency in enforcing territorial authority does not negate the idea that states should deal with peers, not rogue contestants.



Developereo said:


> More disingenuousness building upon your false premise above. Once again, *for which government does AQ speak?*


The University of Jordan found that 60% of Jordanians agreed with Al-Qaeda in principles and many inside that 60% support Al-Qaeda's methods. It was only when Al-Qaeda began hitting Jordanians that popular sentiments turned against it. Today we have militant Islamists gaining popular support in those 'Arab Springs' happening countries. So the issue is not about Al-Qaeda but about militant Islamists.



Developereo said:


> You bring up these strawman arguments to deflect from the main topic which is Dooley's admonition to abandon Geneva Conventions just because the opponents do so.


What do you expects US to do? Dooley ask in slide 8...



> Against "non-state actors" do the Geneva conventions of 1949 now need redefinition/clarification?



Militant Islamists have proven they are more than willing to ignore whatever 'civilized' restraints on methods of warfare. They did it to non-muslims and muslims.



Developereo said:


> So, according to you, refusing to declare 'total war on Islam' is 'political correctness'?


No, refusing to discuss methods of warfare against militant Islam out of the fear for muslim sensitivity is political correctness, which is exactly what you are trying to get US to avoid doing.



Developereo said:


> Repetitive rant not worth responding.


Your loss. This is why I and many Americans, many that you do not realize, do not take seriously the muslim claim that Islam is not 'at war' against the West. Al-Qaeda's attack on US is tactical mistake in that it reveals what many muslims want: The destruction of the West. By the sword if necessary.

The conversation started long before Dooley and his so-called 'course'. Americans have been examining Islam with many lenses, some sympathetic, some hostile, some anywhere in between. Exposure of cultural oddities that has strong ties to muslim dominated cultures like 'honor killing' and mutilations of women's sexual organs showed US the chasm that exists between the two worlds and a 7th century mentality that we do not want.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## VCheng

gambit said:


> ...........
> 
> No, refusing to discuss methods of warfare against militant Islam out of the fear for muslim sensitivity is political correctness, which is exactly what you are trying to get US to avoid doing.
> ................



Try as whoever might, this simply cannot happen. US military preparations must continue to be comprehensive for all scenarios as much as is possible.


----------



## Developereo

gambit said:


> This is *YOUR* goalposts. Not mine. The drug cartels are neither states nor agents of states. State incompetency in enforcing territorial authority does not negate the idea that states should deal with peers, not rogue contestants.



And AQ is not a state or agent of state. It is a group of criminals who use terrorism as a tactic and who exercise control over parts of sovereign countries. Exactly as the drug cartels and pirates do.

All the requirements Dooley mentioned apply equally well to drug lords, and the fact that you keep running off into additional irrelevancies not mentioned in his course is entertaining to watch.



gambit said:


> the issue is not about Al-Qaeda but about militant Islamists.



No, the issue at debate is Dooley's 'war on Islam', as in the religion of Islam.

But it is entertaining to watch you twist and turn to justify something that your CJCS and others in the US administration are at pains to deny.



gambit said:


> Against "non-state actors" do the Geneva conventions of 1949 now need redefinition/clarification?



Precisely the definition that also applies to drug lords and pirates who use terrorism as a modus operandi.



gambit said:


> No, refusing to discuss methods of warfare against militant Islam out of the fear for muslim sensitivity is political correctness, which is exactly what you are trying to get US to avoid doing.



Once again, no one has a problem with fighting militants. At issue is Dooley's extrapolation to turn this into a war on Islam.



gambit said:


> Your loss. This is why I and many Americans, many that you do not realize, do not take seriously the muslim claim that Islam is not 'at war' against the West. Al-Qaeda's attack on US is tactical mistake in that it reveals what many muslims want: The destruction of the West. By the sword if necessary.
> 
> The conversation started long before Dooley and his so-called 'course'. Americans have been examining Islam with many lenses, some sympathetic, some hostile, some anywhere in between. Exposure of cultural oddities that has strong ties to muslim dominated cultures like 'honor killing' and mutilations of women's sexual organs showed US the chasm that exists between the two worlds and a 7th century mentality that we do not want.



Yawn. More ranting.

Amusing at first but, ultimately, boring and repetitive.



VCheng said:


> Try as whoever might, this simply cannot happen. US military preparations must continue to be comprehensive for all scenarios as much as is possible.



It's funny to watch you play the part of the patriot, even an ignorant patriot who doesn't have the moral fortitude to point out when his country is doing something wrong.

What is most ironic, though you will never accept it, is that the people you are defending will be the first to throw you in internment camps simply for being a Muslim and 'not doing enough' to stop the terrorists.

True patriotism lies in speaking the truth, even when it is unfashionable. Something you have yet to learn.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

Developereo said:


> .............
> True patriotism lies in speaking the truth, even when it is unfashionable. ............



That is exactly what I have been doing, no matter how unfashionable it is on this forum!

My statement that made you so irate remains true, no matter how you spin it:

"US military preparations must continue to be comprehensive for all scenarios as much as is possible".

And they will remain so, despite attempts to initiate a politically correct witch hunt.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lem34

VCheng said:


> Try as whoever might, this simply cannot happen. US military preparations must continue to be comprehensive for all scenarios as much as is possible.



I thought they said that they had withdrawn the course from the syllabus


----------



## Developereo

VCheng said:


> That is exactly what I have been doing, no matter how unfashionable it is on this forum!
> 
> My statement that made you so irate remains true, no matter how you spin it:
> 
> "US military preparations must continue to be comprehensive for all scenarios as much as is possible".
> 
> And they will remain so, despite attempts to initiate a politically correct witch hunt.



Your last sentence betrays your confusion or disingenuousness, I don't know which.

As many of us have repeatedly written, the issue is not about fighting AQ and terrorists; no one is against that. The whole issue in this thread is Dooley's war on Islam -- on all Muslims. Part of their justification is the claim that ordinary Muslims are 'not doing enough' and, therefore, must pay the price. It doesn't matter how many times ordinary Muslims, including prominent imams and organizations in the US, speak vociferously against terrorism -- these bigots will always claim that it is 'not enough'. Any time there is a terrorist incident, they will blame all Muslims -- including American Muslims -- for 'not doing enough'.

Opposing this bigoted mantra is not 'political correctness', it is an affirmation of America's ideals -- something which a true patriot should uphold. Something which true American patriots, even the non-Muslim ones, uphold by denouncing these bigots rather than defending them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

Developereo said:


> ........ The whole issue in this thread is Dooley's war on Islam -- on all Muslims. ........



Actually, the confusion, perhaps intentional, is all yours. There is no "Dooley's war on Islam"! He had one course theorizing about hypthetical scenarios as part of developing a comprehensive strategy. That is all.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lem34

VCheng said:


> Actually, the confusion, perhaps intentional, is all yours. There is no "Dooley's war on Islam"! He had one course theorizing about hypthetical scenarios as part of developing a comprehensive strategy. That is all.



stop nit picking mate that's semantics on your part to ignore the substantive and an attempt to derail the thread

We called it x y or z but Devs title seems appropriate to me


----------



## Developereo

VCheng said:


> Actually, the confusion, perhaps intentional, is all yours. There is no "Dooley's war on Islam"!



His words are there in black and white -- a total war, including nuclear strikes and starvation of Saudi Arabia.



VCheng said:


> He had one course theorizing about hypthetical scenarios as part of developing a comprehensive strategy. That is all.



And there are 'hypothetical scenarios' about putting American Muslims in internment camps -- not yet taught in US military colleges.

Not yet.


----------



## VCheng

Aryan_B said:


> stop nit picking mate that's semantics on your part to ignore the substantive and an attempt to derail the thread
> 
> We called it x y or z but Devs title seems appropriate to me



BS! One course taught by one guy is NOT substantive enough to equate it to a "war on Islam" carried out as a US policy. To say so is plain BS.



Developereo said:


> His words are there in black and white -- a total war, including nuclear strikes and starvation of Saudi Arabia.
> 
> And there are 'hypothetical scenarios' about putting American Muslims in internment camps -- not yet taught in US military colleges.
> 
> Not yet.



Of course, it is very typical here to take all of that out of context and start scaremongering to pander to one's own biases.


----------



## SQ8

VCheng said:


> Actually, the confusion, perhaps intentional, is all yours. There is no "Dooley's war on Islam"! He had one course theorizing about hypthetical scenarios as part of developing a comprehensive strategy. That is all.



*



&#8220;It is therefore time for the United States to make our true intentions clear. This barbaric ideology will no longer be tolerated. Islam must change or we will facilitate its self-destruction.&#8221;

Click to expand...

*
*



&#8220;Unfortunately, if we left it at that, you wouldn&#8217;t have the proper balance of points of view, nor would you have an accurate view of how Islam defines itself,&#8221; Dooley told his students. Over the next few weeks, he invited in a trio of guest lecturers famous for their incendiary views of Islam.

By then, Dooley had already presented his apocalyptic vision for a global religious war.

Click to expand...

*
Sounds pretty much like a "War on Islam" to me.. off course.. one can deny a journalistic report at any time.
But if the report is taken verbatim.. It was plain and simple.. A bigots "war on Islam"...
But then again.. there have been many bigots who propagated "_cleaning the muck up east of the suez_" who have sat in the ranks of NATO forces from time to time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juice

This thread has made its point, such things will not be taught to junior officers, in the Pentagon, all plans will be on the shelf, same as always.


----------



## Developereo

VCheng said:


> BS! One course taught by one guy is NOT substantive enough to equate it to a "war on Islam" carried out as a US policy. To say so is plain BS.



I never claimed it is official US policy. We are discussion Dooley's official course.

In fact, I specifically said that Dooley was going counter to official US policy.

What are you smoking?



VCheng said:


> Of course, it is very typical here to take all of that out of context and start scaremongering to pander to one's own biases.



What part is taken out of context? Did he promote these activities as a legitimate US response to terrorism?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

Juice said:


> .......... in the Pentagon, all plans will be on the shelf, same as always.



That is all that matters to ensure comprehensive strategies are ready beforehand to deal with all eventualities.


----------



## SQ8

Juice said:


> This thread has made its point, such things will not be taught to junior officers, in the Pentagon, all plans will be on the shelf, same as always.



True..but it occurs to such bigots and such things were taught to the future leaders of the US armed forces..unfortunately some have taken it as a holier than thou motive to prove that such thoughts are harmless and never occur to Americans..
They occur on a daily basis.. as similar thoughts occur to individuals in Islamic states. 
The question is always of how much such misled and bigoted men are able to spread their influence in their respective target audience.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## lem34

VCheng said:


> BS! One course taught by one guy is NOT substantive enough to equate it to a "war on Islam" carried out as a US policy. To say so is plain BS.



So now you are the arbiter of that too. btw why has it been withdrawn??


----------



## SQ8

VCheng said:


> BS! One course taught by one guy is NOT substantive enough to equate it to a "war on Islam" carried out as a US policy. To say so is plain BS..



that I agree with.. but the officer himself wished for it.. and propagated it..and that ideology was transmitted to all his students ..some of whom may adapt it.
somewhat like a seminary where terrorism was being taught in the lieu of religious teachings with the authorities not having a clue about it till it till much later.

Ill state it as my belief that the US at its core is NOT, NEVER going to be at war with Islam since Islam is a part of the American foundation..
But there are Americans that have decided to take up a war on Islam.. just as Islamic extremists(much more in number) have done on the other side.


----------



## VCheng

Oscar said:


> that I agree with.. but the officer himself wished for it.. and propagated it..and that ideology was transmitted to all his students ..some of whom may adapt it.
> somewhat like a seminary where terrorism was being taught in the lieu of religious teachings with the authorities not having a clue about it till it till much later.



The US system of Checks and Balances is alive and well.



Oscar said:


> Ill state it as my belief that the US at its core is NOT, NEVER going to be at war with Islam since Islam is a part of the American foundation..
> But there are Americans that have decided to take up a war on Islam.. just as Islamic extremists(much more in number) have done on the other side.



But there are no Americans with that ideology able to act out their self-adopted war as state or non-state actors, whereas the Islamic extremists are doing both!



Oscar said:


> .......... as similar thoughts occur to individuals in Islamic states.
> The question is always of how much such misled and bigoted men are able to spread their influence in their respective target audience.



Look at the spread of bigotry and hatred in mostly Islamic countries against other sects and their own people as well as the West, and compare that the relatively minor incidence of such trends in USA.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Developereo

Oscar said:


> ideology was transmitted to all his students ..some of whom may adapt it.



This wasn't some trivial course that freshman cadets snoozed through:



Arabian Knight said:


> The commanders, lieutenant colonels, captains and colonels who sat in Dooley&#8217;s classroom, listening to the inflammatory material week after week, have now moved into higher-level assignments throughout the U.S. military.


----------



## VCheng

Developereo said:


> This wasn't some trivial course that freshman cadets snoozed through:



So the course was so devastatingly effective that all these "commanders, lieutenant colonels, captains and colonels who sat in Dooley&#8217;s classroom" have fallen prey to believing in that hypothetical scenario as they "moved into higher-level assignments throughout the U.S. military"?

There is nothing to suggest that. Or could it be that all these high level officers are too dumb to think on their own and form an opinion against what the course theorized?


----------



## Juice

The fact that many here don't understand the concept of hypothetical planning helps explain how Isreal was able to smash them so often (they do understand, and "game" for many possibilities)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Developereo

VCheng said:


> So the course was so devastatingly effective that all these "commanders, lieutenant colonels, captains and colonels who sat in Dooley&#8217;s classroom" have fallen prey to believing in that hypothetical scenario as they "moved into higher-level assignments throughout the U.S. military"?
> 
> There is nothing to suggest that. Or could it be that all these high level officers are too dumb to think on their own and form an opinion against what the course theorized?



The point is that they were presented with this material (and guest speakers with a known ideology of extreme venom against Islam) in the context of an official course at a US military college.

The official context lends legitimacy to these views that they would otherwise lack.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lem34

VCheng said:


> So the course was so devastatingly effective that all these "commanders, lieutenant colonels, captains and colonels who sat in Dooley&#8217;s classroom" have fallen prey to believing in that hypothetical scenario as they "moved into higher-level assignments throughout the U.S. military"?
> 
> There is nothing to suggest that. Or could it be that all these high level officers are too dumb to think on their own and form an opinion against what the course theorized?



You live in America have some shame. Tell me what would happen if there was a course replacing Jew or Judaism with Islam. You know that's half the problem other American communities remember their origins and stick up for them whereas some of ours try justifying the unjustifiable

Example

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/12/671-n...a-fascist-state-that-is-dragging-us-down.html

A couple of days ago Roger Cohen did an anguished Op-Ed for the New York Times about the American Jewish community's intolerance of criticism of Israel, even as Israeli leadership is destroying "the Zionist dream." The column brought an outpouring of comments, about 238 so far.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Developereo

Juice said:


> The fact that many here don't understand the concept of hypothetical planning helps explain how Isreal was able to smash them so often (they do understand, and "game" for many possibilities)



Precisely why I gave the example of 'hypothetical planning' for nuclear strikes on Sao Paolo to punish drug lords. The reason we don't see similar 'hypothetical planning' against Sao Paolo is because it is unthinkable to apply a broad racist brush against these people.

The premise behind Dooley's 'hypothetical planning' is that it is acceptable to inflict collective punishment on all Muslims for the actions of a band of criminals. This is something the US administration insists is not the mindset of American planners, hypothetical or otherwise.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Developereo said:


> And AQ is not a state or agent of state. It is a group of criminals who use terrorism as a tactic and who exercise control over parts of sovereign countries. Exactly as the drug cartels and pirates do.
> 
> All the requirements Dooley mentioned apply equally well to drug lords, and the fact that you keep running off into additional irrelevancies not mentioned in his course is entertaining to watch.


Did the University of Mexico took a poll and found over half of the Mexicans approve of the drug cartels' principles and goals? Are candidates financed by the drug lords taking over Latin America's parliaments? When that happens we will change our relationships according to the new regimes.



Developereo said:


> No, the issue at debate is Dooley's 'war on Islam', as in the religion of Islam.
> 
> But it is entertaining to watch you twist and turn to justify something that your CJCS and others in the US administration are at pains to deny.


No, the one who is twisting and squirming here is *YOU*. If that University of Jordan poll is any indication, soon enough Islam will fully be an ideology demanding political export instead of a religion propagated by persuasion and conversion. The irony here is that if that ever happens and shariah laws are fully realized in any country conquered by muslims, *YOU* would be in full support of that regression.


----------



## VCheng

gambit said:


> ....... The irony here is that if that ever happens and shariah laws are fully realized in any country conquered by muslims, *YOU* would be in full support of that regression.



No, the REAL irony is that those who would support such implementation of Sharia would like themselves to be secure and free in the West!



Aryan_B said:


> ..........Tell me what would happen if there was a course replacing Jew or Judaism with Islam. ....................



What would happen? NOTHING, because there are no limits on thoughts or theorizing here. Heck, there are discussions like that in universities and inter-faith gatherings ALL the time. 

(And I should know, since I live here.)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lem34

VCheng said:


> No, the REAL irony is that those who would support such implementation of Sharia would like themselves to be secure and free in the West!



Why are you and gambit constantly on this thread trying to derail the thread.

Most Americans themselves would find it abhorrent that such things are planned and that is one of the reasons the course has been withdrawn



VCheng said:


> No, the REAL irony is that those who would support such implementation of Sharia would like themselves to be secure and free in the West!
> 
> 
> 
> What would happen? NOTHING, because there are no limits on thoughts or theorizing here. Heck, there are discussions like that in universities and inter-faith gatherings ALL the time.
> 
> (And I should know, since I live here.)



There are numerous articles on the web just google them mate. 

I presume following your logic there is no harm in some mullahs theorising and talking among their students about destroying all Jews etc

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

VCheng said:


> No, the REAL irony is that those who would support such implementation of Sharia would like themselves to be secure and free in the West!


That and their hypocrisy. They want to be free so they can advocate 7th century mentality and living for everyone else.


----------



## VCheng

Aryan_B said:


> ..............
> I presume following your logic there is no harm in some mullahs theorising and talking among their students about destroying all Jews etc



Well, do you see anybody going into a frenzy over what the mullahs are saying on Youtube? Let them say what they want, and just be prepared for all eventualities. That works rather splendidly.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

Aryan_B said:


> Most Americans themselves would find it abhorrent that such things are planned and that is one of the reasons the course has been withdrawn


And once upon a time most Americans did believe that the 'religion of peace' would not be able to execute a quasi-military special operations attack on civilians completely unaware that their country have been in an undeclared religious war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

gambit said:


> That and their hypocrisy. They want to be free so they can advocate 7th century mentality and living for everyone else.



Of course.

Let anyone put up what was taught in Lal Masjid for years a mere stone's throw away from the Pakistani Parliament against Dooley's one course, and also compare the propagation of such ideas in the US vs Pakistani military, and their effects on national policy.

The answer is crystal clear.


----------



## sur

Developereo said:


> ...to inflict collective punishment on all Muslims for the actions of a band of criminals....


& that group of criminals is perpetuated by masters-of-US themselves, the mother of ALL evils.


gambit said:


> And once upon a time most Americans did believe that the 'religion of peace' would not be able to execute a quasi-military special operations attack on civilians...


 & once upon a time they were correct coz it was YOUR own people-in-power who killed their OWN civilians, NO one came from outside nor were they capable of.



Stealth said:


> "apnay ghar ka defa opar walay nay kudh apnay zemay liya hey" so no worries!
> 
> "Surah Feel"


Yes US crack heads should be gifted this Surah to incorporate into their syllabus ... Just so that we could say "you have been warned" ...
=
=
*Surah Al-Feel (The Elephant)(105)*
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
Seest thou not how thy Lord dealt with the owners of the Elephants? (1) Did He not make their treacherous plan go astray? (2) And He sent against them flights of Birds, (3) Striking them with stones of baked clay. (4) Then did He make them like an empty field of stalks and straw, (of which the corn) has been eaten up. (5) 
=
=
"Ashab-al-Feel" wanted Arabs to worship at their Altar instead of at Kabbah ... & out of mere jealousy wanted to eradicate Kabbah ...

History repeats itself... doesn't it???


----------



## lem34

gambit said:


> That and their hypocrisy. They want to be free so they can advocate 7th century mentality and living for everyone else.



Your dishonesty and duplicitous shines through wonder when you will be areal "American". Why is it that you and Cheng try harder to defend American position when most Americans them selves. Must be the mango thing about being fresh off a boat for you two.

I did not see any of us suggesting what you assert



VCheng said:


> Well, do you see anybody going into a frenzy over what the mullahs are saying on Youtube? Let them say what they want, and just be prepared for all eventualities. That works rather splendidly.



Yes try picking up some newspapers.


----------



## Developereo

gambit said:


> Are candidates financed by the drug lords taking over Latin America's parliaments? When that happens we will change our relationships according to the new regimes.



Again, this is your diversion and not a requirement for Dooley's hypothetical scenario, but anwyay...

Past Party Collusion with Drug Lords Fouls Mexican Candidate

_During the 1980s and 1990s, elected officials and appointees of PRI governments, from Federal Police heavyweight Guillermo Gonzalez Calderoni to drug czar Jesus Gutierrez Rebollo, built up a record of active collusion with Mexican gangs.

Despite the PRI being out of power for the last 12 years, evidence of their links to the drug trade have continued to emerge_

Eight candidates backed by drug lords win: PDEA

BBC News - Drug cartels threaten Latin American democracy - OAS

_Cartels are influencing elections by threatening politicians and even running their own candidates, OAS Secretary for Multidimensional Security Adam Blackwell said._



gambit said:


> soon enough Islam will fully be an ideology demanding political export



I am too lazy to dig up the video of the head US chaplain in Afghanistan telling his troops that they were fighting for Jesus. Feel free to look it up yourself.


----------



## gambit

Aryan_B said:


> Your dishonesty and duplicitous shines through wonder when you will be areal "American".


So what is a 'real American' in your definition? A white person? Does that mean *YOU* are comfortable with looking at the world through a racist/racial prism like the Chinese do? What about you? Are you first a Pakistani or a Brit? Which country has your loyalty, Pakistan or Britain? Why are you in Britain?


----------



## lem34

gambit said:


> And once upon a time most Americans did believe that the 'religion of peace' would not be able to execute a quasi-military special operations attack on civilians completely unaware that their country have been in an undeclared religious war.



It is not the religion of peace that has changed it is America. In the disproportionate response to the nefarious attack on the twin towers US has become what they were fighting-simply the unjust.

Sometimes the means do not justify the ends on this occasion

Back to topic it is disgusting that anyone should try to defend what the American govt itself has accepted by their actions in withdrawing the course is and was abhorrent


----------



## Developereo

Aryan_B said:


> Why are you and gambit constantly on this thread trying to derail the thread.



It's a desperation tactic to run away from the indefensible into strawman arguments.

It's like watching a group of headless chickens strutting around when they have no clue why they were here in the first place, but must keep strutting just to have something to do.

Now they have moved on to sharia law, of all things!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lem34

gambit said:


> So what is a 'real American' in your definition? A white person? Does that mean *YOU* are comfortable with looking at the world through a racist/racial prism like the Chinese do? What about you? Are you first a Pakistani or a Brit? Which country has your loyalty, Pakistan or Britain? Why are you in Britain?



Whether you like it or not I speak the truth.

For example a mango someone that comes from Pakistan fresh first generation has different views and sometimes in their excitement to justify their new nationality go overboard. As it is my assertion the case with you and VC

for example I as a fourth gen Pakistani Brit have no problem disagreeing with Brit govt. In fact a majority of us Brits were against the Iraq war. 

But I can imagine if my grand father's position in the same circumstances would have been different. 

I am proud of my origins. I have loyalties to UK too. But I try to say what I think is just immaterial whether its in favour of UK or Pakistan. 

Justice has no nationality or race

Back to topic it is sad that such courses have been run by the American military

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Developereo said:


> Again, this is your diversion and not a requirement for Dooley's hypothetical scenario, but anwyay...
> 
> Past Party Collusion with Drug Lords Fouls Mexican Candidate
> 
> _During the 1980s and 1990s, elected officials and appointees of PRI governments, from Federal Police heavyweight Guillermo Gonzalez Calderoni to drug czar Jesus Gutierrez Rebollo, built up a record of active collusion with Mexican gangs.
> 
> Despite the PRI being out of power for the last 12 years, evidence of their links to the drug trade have continued to emerge_
> 
> Eight candidates backed by drug lords win: PDEA
> 
> BBC News - Drug cartels threaten Latin American democracy - OAS
> 
> _Cartels are influencing elections by threatening politicians and even running their own candidates, OAS Secretary for Multidimensional Security Adam Blackwell said._


And until Mexico or Columbia made the export of substances -- deem illegal in other countries -- part of national policy and foreign affairs, we are willing to be generous to the current governments in believing they want nothing to do with the drug cartels. You failed.



Developereo said:


> I am too lazy to dig up the video of the head US chaplain in Afghanistan telling his troops that they were fighting for Jesus. Feel free to look it up yourself.


But is the Jesus he was talking about a militant one?

The Jamestown Foundation: Jordanian Poll Indicates Erosion of Public Support for al-Qaeda


> The ramifications of the November 9, 2005 Amman suicide bombings indicate that the terrorist act played a major role in changing people's attitudes toward terrorism.
> 
> The poll reported a *"radical change"* in Jordanians' attitudes toward those who kill American and Israeli civilians, but reported no "dramatic change" in their attitudes toward killing U.S. and Israeli military forces. *The percentage of those who considered the September 11 attacks "terrorist" acts rose to 61.4% as opposed to 34.6% in 2004.*


What this mean is that in 2004, over half of Jordanians, presumably muslims, believed that the 9/11 attack on US was a legitimate military-style attack on a hostile country. It was only after the Amman killing of fellow muslims that there was a change in attitude. They believed that their government was too weak to act on muslims' behalf and that it took the individual courage of 19 martyrs to do what all the muslim governments would not do.

So to reverse this change in attitude, all Al-Qaeda have to do is attack non-muslims. It does not matter if is the original Al-Qaeda or some rebranding of the same mentality. Just behead a few more journalists/CIA/Mossad agents and everything will be hunky-dory. At the same time, get more involved in local politics through the normal democratic processes, as much as those governments will allow. No need to burn any US flags. Just spout of the same old rhetoric about the 'oppressed muslims' and get as many votes as possible.

*YOU* would approve of such tactics.


----------



## haviZsultan

Arabian Knight said:


> Lt. Col. Matthew A. Dooley's Joint Staff Forces College presentation on "A Counter-Jihad Op Design Model" (.pdf) calls for violent measures in a war against Islam.
> 
> 
> The U.S. military taught its future leaders that a total war against the worlds 1.4 billion Muslims would be necessary to protect America from Islamic terrorists, according to documents obtained by Danger Room. Among the options considered for that conflict: *using the lessons of Hiroshima to wipe out whole cities at once, targeting the civilian population wherever necessary.*
> 
> *The course, first reported by Danger Room last month and held at the Defense Departments Joint Forces Staff College, has since been canceled by the Pentagon brass. Its only now, however, that the details of the class have come to light. *Danger Room received hundreds of pages of course material and reference documents from a source familiar with the contents of the class.
> 
> The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recently ordered the entire U.S. military to scour its training material to make sure it doesnt contain similarly hateful material, a process that is still ongoing. But the officer who delivered the lectures, Army Lt. Col. Matthew A. Dooley, still maintains his position at the Norfolk, Virginia college, pending an investigation. The commanders, lieutenant colonels, captains and colonels who sat in Dooleys classroom, listening to the inflammatory material week after week, have now moved into higher-level assignments throughout the U.S. military.
> 
> 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.
> 
> We have now come to understand that there is no such thing as moderate Islam, Dooley noted in a July 2011 presentation (.pdf), which concluded with a suggested manifesto to Americas enemies. It is therefore time for the United States to make our true intentions clear. This barbaric ideology will no longer be tolerated. Islam must change or we will facilitate its self-destruction.
> 
> Dooley could not be reached for comment. Joint Forces Staff College spokesman Steven Williams declined to discuss Dooleys presentation or his status at the school. But when asked if Dooley was responsible for the course material, he responded, I dont know if I would classify him [Dooley] as responsible. That would be the commandant of the school, Maj. Gen. Joseph Ward.
> 
> That makes the two-star general culpable for rather shocking material. In the same presentation, *Dooley lays out a possible four-phase war plan to carry out a forced transformation of the Islam religion. Phase three includes possible outcomes like Islam reduced to a cult status and Saudi Arabia threatened with starvation. (Its an especially ironic suggestion, in light of todays news that Saudi intelligence broke up the most recent al-Qaida bombing plot.)
> *
> *International laws protecting civilians in wartime are no longer relevant, Dooley continues.* *And that opens the possibility of applying the historical precedents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki to Islams holiest cities, and bringing about Mecca and Medina['s] destruction.*
> 
> 
> Dooleys ideological allies have repeatedly stated that mainstream Muslims are dangerous, because theyre violent by nature. Yet only a few of al-Qaidas most twisted fanatics were ever caught musing about wiping out entire cities.
> 
> Some of these actions offered for consideration here will not be seen as political correct in the eyes of many, Dooley adds. Ultimately, we can do very little in the West to decide this matter, short of waging total war.
> 
> Dooley, who has worked at the Joint Forces Staff College since August 2010, began his eight-week class with a straightforward, two-part history of Islam. It was delivered by David Fatua, a former West Point history professor. Unfortunately, if we left it at that, you wouldnt have the proper balance of points of view, nor would you have an accurate view of how Islam defines itself, Dooley told his students. Over the next few weeks, he invited in a trio of guest lecturers famous for their incendiary views of Islam.
> 
> Shireen Burki declared during the 2008 election that Obama is bin Ladens dream candidate. In her Joint Forces Staff College lecture, she told students that Islam is an Imperialist/Conquering Religion. (.pdf)
> 
> Stephen Coughlin claimed in his 2007 masters thesis that then-president George W. Bushs declaration of friendship with the vast majority of the worlds Muslims had a chilling effect on those tasked to define the enemys doctrine. (.pdf) Coughlin was subsequently let go from his consulting position to the militarys Joint Staff, but he continued to lecture at the Naval War College and at the FBIs Washington Field Office. In his talk to Dooleys class (.pdf), Coughlin suggested that al-Qaida helped drive the overthrow of Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak and Libyan dictator Muammar Gadhafi. It was part of a scheme by Islamists to conquer the world, he added. And Coughlin mocked those who didnt see this plot as clearly as he did, accusing them of complexification.
> 
> Coughlin titled his talk: Imposing Islamic Law  or  These Arent the Droids Your Looking For!
> 
> Former FBI employee John Guandolo told the conspiratorial World Net Daily website last year that Obama was only the latest president to fall under the influence of Islamic extremists. The level of penetration in the last three administrations is deep, Guandolo alleged. In his reference material for the Joint Forces Staff College class, Guandolo not only spoke of todays Muslims as enemies of the West. He even justified the Crusades, writing that they were initiated after hundreds of years of Muslim incursion into Western lands.
> 
> Guandolos paper, titled Usual Responses from the Enemy When Presented With the Truth (.pdf), was one of hundreds of presentations, documents, videos and web links electronically distributed to the Joint Forces Staff College students. Included in that trove: a paper alleging that it is a permanent command in Islam for Muslims to hate and despise Jews and Christians (.pdf). So was a video lecture from Serge Trifkovic, a former professor who appeared as a defense witness in several trials of Bosnian Serb leaders convicted of war crimes, including the genocide of Muslims. A web link, titled Watch Before This Is Pulled, supposedly shows President Obama  the commander-in-chief of the senior officers attending the course  admitting that hes a Muslim.
> 
> Dooley added the caveats that his views are not the Official Policy of the United States Government and are intended to generate dynamic discussion and thought. But he taught his fellow military officers that Obamas alleged admission could well make the commander in chief some sort of traitor. By conservative estimates, 10 percent of the worlds Muslims, a staggering 140 million people  hate everything you stand for and will never coexist with you, unless you submit to Islam. He added, Your oath as a professional soldier forces you to pick a side here. It is unclear if Dooleys total war on Muslims also applied to his Muslim commander in chief.
> 
> *After the Pentagon brass learned of Dooleys presentation, the countrys top military officer, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, issued an order to every military chief and senior commander to get rid of any similar anti-Islam instructional material.* Dempsey issued the order because the White House had already instructed the entire security apparatus of the federal government  military and civilian  to revamp its counterterrorism training after learning of FBI material that demonized Islam.
> 
> *By then, Dooley had already presented his apocalyptic vision for a global religious war.* Flynn has ordered a senior officer, Army Maj. Gen. Frederick Rudesheim, to investigate how precisely Dooley managed to get away with that extended presentation in an official Defense Department-sanctioned course. The results of that review are due May 24.
> 
> Ironically, Dooley and his guest lecturers paint a dire picture of the forward march of Islamic extremism right as its foremost practitioner feared its implosion. Documents recently declassified by the U.S. government revealed Osama bin Laden fretting about al-Qaidas brutal methods and damaged brand alienating the vast majority of Muslims from choosing to wage holy war. Little could he have known that U.S. military officers were thinking of ways to ignite one.
> 
> U.S. Military Taught Officers: Use 'Hiroshima' Tactics for 'Total War' on Islam | Danger Room | Wired.com



Brilliant article exposing US's intentions towards this region. They have already formed cults such as the Taliban and Al Qaeda which are champions at killing innocent Muslims.


----------



## gambit

Aryan_B said:


> Whether you like it or not I speak the truth.
> 
> For example a mango someone that comes from Pakistan fresh first generation has different views and sometimes in their excitement to justify their new nationality go overboard. As it is my assertion the case with you and VC
> 
> for example I as a fourth gen Pakistani Brit have no problem disagreeing with Brit govt. In fact a majority of us Brits were against the Iraq war.
> 
> But I can imagine if my grand father's position in the same circumstances would have been different.
> 
> I am proud of my origins. *I have loyalties to UK too.* But I try to say what I think is just immaterial whether its in favour of UK or Pakistan.
> 
> Justice has no nationality or race
> 
> Back to topic it is sad that such courses have been run by the American military


Suuurrre you do.  So what you are saying is that your racial prism is applicable only to me but not you. No wonder I laugh at you racists in your mental gymnastics. Be proud of what you are: a racist. It does not mean you have to hate. It just mean you consider racial identity to be and should be the dominant factor in anyone's view of the world. To me, a Klansman got more courage than you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Developereo

gambit said:


> And until Mexico or Columbia made the export of substances -- deem illegal in other countries -- part of national policy and foreign affairs, we are willing to be generous to the current governments in believing they want nothing to do with the drug cartels.



The officials owned by the drug cartels made it a policy to allow the drug trafficking, which amounts to the same thing. Whether the policy is _de jure_ or _de facto_, the end result is the same since the criminals' actions are the same.

I am enjoying your dance though. First it was, 'do they export this or that?', then it became 'yes, but do they run candidates?', now you have run off to 'yes, but is it official policy?'



gambit said:


> You failed.



Yes, I failed in bringing the discussion back to Dooley's course but it is clear you have run off permanently into your strawmen, given that the course itself is indefensible.



gambit said:


> But is the Jesus he was talking about a militant one?



Indubitably.

His troops drove around Afghanistan with a banner reading 'Jesus killed Mohammed'.

P.S. Anyway, it's clear this thread is going nowhere. I am outta here...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Developereo said:


> The officials owned by the drug cartels made it a policy to allow the drug trafficking, which amounts to the same thing. Whether the policy is _de jure_ or _de facto_, the end result is the same since the criminals' actions are the same.


Then this is a matter of corruption. Drug cartels export a substance. Al-Qaeda and the like minded export what equivalent?



Developereo said:


> I am enjoying your dance though. First it was, 'do they export this or that?', then it became 'yes, but do they run candidates?', now you have run off to 'yes, but is it official policy?'


 The one who is dancing here is *YOU* who has to strain at gnats to compare drug cartels with religious and ideologically motivated terrorists.



Developereo said:


> Yes, I failed in bringing the discussion back to Dooley's course but it is clear you have run off permanently into your strawmen, given that the course itself is indefensible.


Wrong. I have remain with this discussion all this time. The drug cartels and the pirates are *YOUR* strawmen.



Developereo said:


> Indubitably.
> 
> His troops drove around Afghanistan with a banner reading 'Jesus killed Mohammed'.
> 
> P.S. Anyway, it's clear this thread is going nowhere. I am outta here...


Escape while you can. The conversation about and on Islam will continue with and without you. There are no religious banner in the US military, one that allows homosexuals to openly serve while your society oppresses the same group. Another fail argument.


----------



## sur

Watch videos of US deserters who too asylum in Canada, they told that during training they would shout *"Kill haji,, kill haji"* ... So i won't doubt OP article a bit, as i herd of their intentions from horse's mouth itself.
=
*03:55 onwards* -&-*(04:15+)*When stabbing dummies they were told to yell "*kill Haji*"
.
.
.
*"Haji"!!! really!!! ...* now what Vcheng-&-Gambit-&-Co are gonna come up with,,, _Ohhh actually it's a slang for terrorists_ ... 
*
A Deserter's Tale Part 1 - YouTube
=
=
*minutes 02:00+* "Haji" ... what u butchers have against "Hajis"???
*
http://youtu.be/HMt5LTmIbVk

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lem34

sur said:


> Watch videos of US deserters who too asylum in Canada, they told that during training they would shout *"Kill haji,, kill haji"* ... So i won't doubt OP article a bit, as i herd of their intentions from horse's mouth itself.



Shame on the united rogue state


----------



## gambit

sur said:


> Watch videos of US deserters who too asylum in Canada, they told that during training they would shout *"Kill haji,, kill haji"* ... So i won't doubt OP article a bit, as i herd of their intentions from horse's mouth itself.


Then you have no problems with 'Death to America'?



Aryan_B said:


> Shame on the united rogue state


Then you have no problems with putting the same condemnation on those who chant 'Death to America'?


----------



## VCheng

gambit said:


> Then you have no problems with 'Death to America'?
> 
> 
> Then you have no problems with putting the same condemnation on those who chant 'Death to America'?



After the Islamic Revolution in Iran, there was a huge banner outside Tehran Airport with _"Marg Bar Amrika"_ (Death to America) sanctioned by the government itself, not just non-state actors.


----------



## lem34

gambit said:


> Then you have no problems with 'Death to America'?
> 
> 
> Then you have no problems with putting the same condemnation on those who chant 'Death to America'?



Yea I believe that is inappropriate


----------



## sur

*6:05 onwards:-*
=
Another us army DESERTER - "more & more stories will come.." - YouTube
=
They would kill innocent & then *IMPLANT* weapons on them & take pictures...
*
http://youtu.be/vwoVOSdElx4
=
911 was a LIE (*6:00 onwards*)
*
http://youtu.be/QOQ7KwESh4A
=
Depleted Uranium used as this guy admits

There was NO insurgency, until after invasion, when poor ppl whose children were murdered by Dajjalis chose to fight back ...
*
http://youtu.be/q5DfCS11hy4
=


gambit said:


> Then you have no problems with 'Death to America'?


Did you hear anything from me to this effect -or- u like to shove words in others mouth, just like u love to kill ur own ppl & then blame innocent-poor-incapable cave dwellers for ur own crimes ...


----------



## SQ8

VCheng said:


> The US system of Checks and Balances is alive and well.
> 
> 
> 
> But there are no Americans with that ideology able to act out their self-adopted war as state or non-state actors, whereas the Islamic extremists are doing both!
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the spread of bigotry and hatred in mostly Islamic countries against other sects and their own people as well as the West, and compare that the relatively minor incidence of such trends in USA.



Agreed whole heartedly on all counts.. 
Except the possibility that at some point.. there is a possibility that some person, in command of formidable US military hardware..May give an order based on teachings such as those taught by Mr Dooley that may be misconstrued by this sub-ordinates as legitimate.

The US can never be compared to Islamic countries since the dynamics at play are apples and oranges...or rather apples and leek.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bilal587

PteX said:


> Sorry, but your statement is delirious.
> Only Pakistan has nukes, and they are the only one's that could do anything that would kill a few thousand Americans.
> That being said, your nukes would probably kill mostly Pakistanis and Pakistan itself. They are the only superpower for a reason and they would not hesitate to completely destroy any threat against their nation.



I pray my God the first country Pakistan nuke should be Israel from that day im sure all problems in this world will solve afterwards from tht day. AMEEN


----------



## VCheng

Oscar said:


> Agreed whole heartedly on all counts..
> Except the possibility that at some point.. there is a possibility that some person, in command of formidable US military hardware..May give an order based on teachings such as those taught by Mr Dooley that may be misconstrued by this sub-ordinates as legitimate.
> 
> The US can never be compared to Islamic countries since the dynamics at play are apples and oranges...or rather apples and leek.



While an isolated incident or two on a limited scale, at some point in the future, is not _totally _out of the question, but the odds of even that happening are extremely low. And the chances of anything like that being adopted on a national or global scale are non-existent. Zero.



Bilal587 said:


> I pray my God the first country Pakistan nuke should be Israel from that day* im sure all problems in this will solve afterwards from tht day*. AMEEN



Boy, are you going to be disappointed!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

VCheng said:


> While an isolated incident or two on a limited scale, at some point in the future, is not _totally _out of the question, but the odds of even that happening are extremely low. And the chances of anything like that being adopted on a *national or global scale are non-existent. Zero.*



Agree with that as well. Point being.. that such incidents provide evidence to the very Islamic extremists the US wishes to fight that the US in indeed on a "war against Islam". 
For eg.. a lot of lives have been changed by USAID, a lot of people in KP have learnt skills from various programs... befitting from the investment made by the US to "win hearts and minds". 
However.. when these very people hear of a distant relative child killed by a drone strike, all that positive PR built by the US in that sector goes up in smoke..and this incident contributes to proving fuel to extremism. Its a simple issue of one step forward and two steps back. The policy makers, the military men.. need people who understand the fundamentals of Islam, its application in modern times.. its new interpretation..and most importantly.. these people have to be practising Muslims and not some author who wrote "_*Prophet of Doom*_".. to be taught about Islam and Muslims.. and how to engage them in an effective manner..
how to counter arguments of those bigots that parrot bigotry they learn out of the pulpits of mosques all over the world.
And more importantly, more US muslims need to be brought aboard in this WoT.. 
because when a bigot that is being quelled and "hearts and Minds" won by telling people that US is not at war.. and what they are being told is incorrect is preached in public by US military contact teams.. and some brainwashed person comes up and says "you are not a Muslim, what would you know".. such persons can come out and say "_No, I am a Muslim, I am a soldier of the USA..and this is why you are wrong..and I can show it to you in the Quran..I can tell you by the Sunnah_"

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

Oscar said:


> ............. The policy makers, the military men.. need people who understand the fundamentals of Islam, its application in modern times.. its new interpretation..and most importantly.. these people have to be practising Muslims and not some author who wrote "_*Prophet of Doom*_".. to be taught about Islam and Muslims.. and how to engage them in an effective manner..
> how to counter arguments of those bigots that parrot bigotry they learn out of the pulpits of mosques all over the world.
> And more importantly, more US muslims need to be brought aboard in this WoT..



Believe it or not, there are inputs exactly like that already, and pretty effectively so, too.



Oscar said:


> ...........because when a bigot that is being quelled and "hearts and Minds" won by telling people that US is not at war.. and what they are being told is incorrect is preached in public by US military contact teams.. and some brainwashed person comes up and says "you are not a Muslim, what would you know".. such persons can come out and say "_No, *I am a Muslim, I am a soldier of the USA*..and this is why you are wrong..and I can show it to you in the Quran..I can tell you by the Sunnah_"



Yeah, and then he himself gets accused of being a _murtad _after saying that. (Witness all the names I get called here, as a small glimpse of that bigotry.)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Peregrine

I bet Saudis have never even considered a war scenario with America and here Americans are devising diabolical methods to kill Saudis. This revelation of American intentions, must reach every nook and corner of KSA and above all, they must protest this at diplomatic level, if Americans stick to their arrogance as usual, then oil embargo should be in place. Some one must stand upto these tyrants.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

VCheng said:


> Believe it or not, there are inputs exactly like that already, and pretty effectively so, too.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and then he himself gets accused of being a _murtad _after saying that. (Witness all the names I get called here, as a small glimpse of that bigotry.)



Yet when news of such "dooleys" comes out.. its again two steps back from the one step forward.


----------



## Mercenary

If you guys have watched the Angelina Jolie movie, Salt, it has a similar storyline.

A Russian Spy wants to launch American Nuclear Weapons at Makkah and Tehran to destroy American by a death from a thousand cuts.


----------



## lem34

VCheng said:


> Yeah, and then he himself gets accused of being a _murtad _after saying that. (Witness all the names I get called here, as a small glimpse of that bigotry.)



VC how can you compare an official course run by American military with indisciplined individuals on the forum etc. In any event your mitigation for these acts is pretty poor

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

Oscar said:


> Yet when news of such "dooleys" comes out.. its again two steps back from the one step forward.



Actually, the "dooleys" get weeded out whenever exposed, so the US system continues to improve gradually, whereas the two steps back are taken intentionally by those who intentionally flame such hatred in countries such as Pakistan just to ensure their hold on power. The problem lies not within USA, but in countries where the powers-that-be are flaming anti-US hatred for their own goals. Case exhibit: The creation of the Difa-e-Pakistan Council.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lem34

VCheng said:


> Actually, the "dooleys" get weeded out whenever exposed, so the US system continues to improve gradually, whereas the two steps back are taken intentionally by those who intentionally flame such hatred in countries such as Pakistan just to ensure their hold on power. The problem lies not within USA, but in countries where the powers-that-be are flaming anti-US hatred for their own goals. Case exhibit: The creation of the Difa-e-Pakistan Council.



Mate this programm has been running for several years. btw I was brought up with western press went to western uni etc. I and a lot of people not of Pakistani origin can see that American policies are unjust. Dislike of Americans is also widespread in Europe

While George W. Bush's policies have catapulted anti-Americanism into overdrive, particularly in Western Europe

Markovits, A.S.: Uncouth Nation: Why Europe Dislikes America.


----------



## VCheng

Aryan_B said:


> Mate this programm has been running for several years. btw I was brought up with western press went to western uni etc. I and a lot of people not of Pakistani origin can see that American policies are unjust. Dislike of Americans is also widespread in Europe
> 
> While George W. Bush's policies have catapulted anti-Americanism into overdrive, particularly in Western Europe
> 
> Markovits, A.S.: Uncouth Nation: Why Europe Dislikes America.



Pursuit of national interests is _not _an international democracy contest. What is your point? That USA should do what the world finds agreeable rather than what serves its national interests?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

VCheng said:


> Actually, the "dooleys" get weeded out whenever exposed, so the US system continues to improve gradually, whereas the two steps back are taken intentionally by those who intentionally flame such hatred in countries such as Pakistan just to ensure their hold on power. The problem lies not within USA, but in countries where the powers-that-be are flaming anti-US hatred for their own goals. Case exhibit: The creation of the *Difa-e-Pakistan Council*.



Three members of which I am aware of(not to be named but were visible at the Lahore gathering) that have children in the US studying in places such as Boston, LA and Flordia..
In Pakistan daddy dear is "Death to America"
Meanwhile in Florida its " Como'estas mi Bonita"

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lem34

VCheng said:


> Pursuit of national interests is _not _an international democracy contest. What is your point? That USA should do what the world finds agreeable rather than what serves its national interests?



Or maybe people can see through their hypocrisy and duplicity


----------



## VCheng

Oscar said:


> Three members of which I am aware of(not to be named but were visible at the Lahore gathering) that have children in the US studying in places such as Boston, LA and Flordia..
> In Pakistan daddy dear is "Death to America"
> Meanwhile in Florida its " Como'estas mi Bonita"



Nevermind mind DPC, even stalwarts like Fazlur Rahman a.k.a Maulana Diesel's kids are settled in Atlanta. Maulana Madoodi's son is settled in Buffalo. Musharraf's son and several others members of his family are here too, as are numerous others.

Such hypocrisy is exactly what contributes to a lack of national credibility when Pakistanis speak in any official capacity.



Aryan_B said:


> Or maybe people can see through their hypocrisy and duplicity



People will see what they want to see; you are yourself a prime example of that. But that is nothing to affect the pursuit of national interests.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lem34

VCheng said:


> Nevermind mind DPC, even stalwarts like Fazlur Rahman a.k.a Maulana Diesel's kids are settled in Atlanta. Maulana Madoodi's son is settled in Buffalo. Musharraf's son and several others members of his family are here too, as are numerous others.
> 
> Such hypocrisy is exactly what contributes to a lack of national credibility when Pakistanis speak in any official capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> People will see what they want to see; you are yourself a prime example of that. But that is nothing to affect the pursuit of national interests.



Mate do you not get the picture I was pointing out to you that American regime policies are hated the world over for hypocrisy. It would appear that you have special glasses which hide American misdemeanour's but highlight Pakistani one lol


----------



## VCheng

Aryan_B said:


> Mate do you not get the picture I was pointing out to you that American regime policies are hated the world over for hypocrisy. It would appear that you have special glasses which hide American misdemeanour's but highlight Pakistani one lol



And as usual you are missing the point: Hatred is a mere emotion that cannot affect pursuit of national interests; the lack of credibility, which is what I was pointing out, damages the ability of Pakistani officials to carry out state business.


----------



## SQ8

VCheng said:


> And as usual you are missing the point: Hatred is a mere emotion that cannot affect pursuit of national interests; the *lack of credibility*, which is what I was pointing out, damages the ability of Pakistani officials to carry out state business.



Which brings us back to this original incident..which has now triggered a lack of credibility in those statements made by US officials that the United States is not at war with Islam.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lem34

VCheng said:


> And as usual you are missing the point: Hatred is a mere emotion that cannot affect pursuit of national interests; the lack of credibility, which is what I was pointing out, damages the ability of Pakistani officials to carry out state business.



VC mate ring a ring a roses pocket full of poses. You must try to stay on topic. Even if it shows America in a bad light. Even the thought of committing genocide should be anathema in civilised society


----------



## VCheng

Oscar said:


> Which brings us back to this original incident..which has now triggered a lack of credibility in those statements made by US officials that the United States is not at war with Islam.



Not at all; it has triggered a lack of credibility only in those already blinded by hate. They are a lost cause. The response of canceling the course and the investigation will set things right for all others.



Aryan_B said:


> VC mate ring a ring a roses pocket full of poses. You must try to stay on topic. Even if it shows America in a bad light. Even the thought of committing genocide should be anathema in civilised society



Yeah: try telling that to those calling for destruction of USA and at least one another country too. And they drew first blood too.


----------



## lem34

VCheng said:


> Yeah: try telling that to those calling for destruction of USA and at least one another country too. And they drew first blood too.



VC mate please do not be offended but are you being a bit dim today. How can you compare the rantings of any individual to state institutions??

You see this is the thing where I think some nouveau Americans have lost the plot. Americans were a proud nation with morals and standards above the rest. But they have lost any claim to that. In fighting evil they have become evil


----------



## LeGenD

Aryan_B said:


> Mate do you not get the picture I was pointing out to you that American regime policies are hated the world over for hypocrisy. It would appear that you have special glasses which hide American misdemeanour's but highlight Pakistani one lol


While muslims are generally quick to point out flaws in policies of others; how about the need to address flaws and menace of fundamentalism prevalent in the Islamic Front as well?

Do not forget that terrorists from Islamic nations are responsible for WOT. 9/11 have fueled fundamentalism in USA. Thanks to these terrorists, US now harbors a new threat perception: Islamic Fundamentalism.

Oh wait! 9/11 was an inside job, right?

And by the way, Allah Almighty (God) controls the whole world. Not AIPAC.

Every human is responsible for own actions.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## VCheng

LeGenD said:


> ...........
> Do not forget that terrorists from Islamic nations are responsible for WOT. 9/11 have fueled fundamentalism in USA. Thanks to these terrorists, US now harbors a new threat perception: Islamic Fundamentalism.
> .....................



It is not just a perception: Militant Islamic fundamentalism, and the terrorism it has already spawned, is a real threat to all of modern civilization as most countries would know it, not just the West.


----------



## lem34

LeGenD said:


> While muslims are generally quick to point out flaws in policies of others; how about the need to address flaws and menace of fundamentalism prevalent in the Islamic Front as well?
> 
> .



Go and start a thread and we will. This thread is about Ameirca



LeGenD said:


> Do not forget that terrorists from Islamic nations are responsible for WOT. 9/11 have fueled fundamentalism in USA. Thanks to these terrorists, US now harbors a new threat perception: Islamic Fundamentalism.
> .



Yes most of them were Saudis



LeGenD said:


> Oh wait! 9/11 was an inside job, right?
> 
> And by the way, Allah Almighty (God) controls the whole world. Not AIPAC.
> 
> Every human is responsible for own actions.



AIPAC controls American foreign policy



VCheng said:


> It is not just a perception: Militant Islamic fundamentalism, and the terrorism it has already spawned, is a real threat to all of modern civilization as most countries would know it, not just the West.



well off topic in your defence of abhorrent American action that is to commit genocide

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KS

Aryan_B said:


> Go and start a thread and we will. This thread is about Ameirca



Things don't happen in vacuum to isolate and analyze.




Aryan_B said:


> Yes most of them were Saudis



And ?


----------



## Developereo

gambit said:


> Then this is a matter of corruption. Drug cartels export a substance. Al-Qaeda and the like minded export what equivalent?



The US military is tasked to protect American interests. They don't care whether it's Noriega or BinLaden, or what they are 'exporting'. As long as the US administration designates them as a threat to American interests, they will engage the enemy.



gambit said:


> The one who is dancing here is *YOU* who has to strain at gnats to compare drug cartels with religious and ideologically motivated terrorists.



It's a fake distinction YOU make to run away from the core issue, which is collective punishment. The example of drug cartels is given to show the logical inconsistency of Dooley's argument, since all his prerequisites for drastic action are satisfied by drug cartels also.



gambit said:


> Escape while you can.



Nah, just bored with your performance. As much as you dance, you are no Travolta or Baryshnikov.



gambit said:


> There are no religious banner in the US military,



The religious banner 'Jesus killed Mohammed' was paraded by US military personnel serving in Afghanistan. The video is on youtube.



gambit said:


> one that allows homosexuals to openly serve while your society oppresses the same group. Another fail argument.


 
First sharia and now homosexuals? 

Dance, baby, dance!



LeGenD said:


> While muslims are generally quick to point out flaws in policies of others; how about the need to address flaws and menace of fundamentalism prevalent in the Islamic Front as well?



The topic here is not whether Islamic extremism exists, but whether a 'Total war on Islam' is a legitimate response by the US military.

*Some posters, including gambit and VCheng, believe that such a war on all Muslims, including nuking Mecca and Medina, is a legitimate and valid response by the US military and that the option must 'remain on the table'.*

Exhibit A (special focus on the last sentence):



VCheng said:


> That is exactly what I have been doing, no matter how unfashionable it is on this forum!
> 
> My statement that made you so irate remains true, no matter how you spin it:
> 
> "US military preparations must continue to be comprehensive for all scenarios as much as is possible".
> 
> And they will remain so, despite attempts to initiate a politically correct witch hunt.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Developereo said:


> *The US military is tasked to protect American interests. * They don't care whether it's Noriega or BinLaden, or what they are 'exporting'. As long as the US administration designates them as a threat to American interests, they will engage the enemy.


National interests. By your argument, may be the US military should round up American drug users? No wonder I do not take your arguments so far seriously.



Developereo said:


> It's a fake distinction YOU make to run away from the core issue, which is collective punishment. The example of drug cartels is given to show the logical inconsistency of Dooley's argument, since all his prerequisites for drastic action are satisfied by drug cartels also.


It is not a fake distinction. It is real enough that countries respects it.



Developereo said:


> First sharia and now homosexuals?
> 
> Dance, baby, dance!


Nah...The one who is dancing here is *YOU* in trying to equate drug cartels with state interests and our military with yours, one that is rife with religious zealots.



Developereo said:


> The topic here is not whether Islamic extremism exists, but whether a 'Total war on Islam' is a legitimate response by the US military.
> 
> *Some posters, including gambit and VCheng, believe that such a war on all Muslims, including nuking Mecca and Medina, is a legitimate and valid response by the US military and that the option must 'remain on the table'.*


It is presumed upon that a total war has been declared by the muslims upon US. You cannot even face the reality and truth that if Osama bin Laden had in possession a nuclear or at least a radiological weapon, he would have used it, and that would definitely earn the muslims an equivalent response.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Developereo

gambit said:


> National interests. By your argument, may be the US military should round up American drug users? No wonder I do not take your arguments so far seriously.



I specifically said that the US administration decides whom the US military engages as targets. Where do drug users come into this?



gambit said:


> It is not a fake distinction. It is real enough that countries respects it.



They are both threats to national security and they both fit the prerequisites of Dooley's drastic action. Those are the salient issues.



gambit said:


> our military with yours, one that is rife with religious zealots.



I really enjoy watching you squirm every time you try to drag Pakistan into the discussion. I truly do!



gambit said:


> It is presumed upon that a total war has been declared by the muslims upon US



Please read what I wrote about circular arguments and (false) _a priori_ assumptions. Show us where in Dooley's course he waits for Muslims to 'declare total war' before triggering his retaliation.

How exactly does a politically, culturally and ethnically diverse group of 1.4 billion people 'declare total war' anyway?



gambit said:


> You cannot even face the reality and truth that if Osama bin Laden had in possession a nuclear or at least a radiological weapon, he would have used it, and that would definitely earn the muslims an equivalent response.



He probably would have, and there is a non-zero probability that someone may still. How does that justify nuking Mecca? How will nuking Mecca solve the problem of terrorism?


----------



## King Solomon

Developereo said:


> Try enrolling in remedial English before typing again.
> 
> I specifically said that the US administration decides whom the US military engages as targets. Where do drug users come into this?
> 
> They are both threats to national security and they both fit the prerequisites of Dooley's drastic action. Those are the salient issues.
> 
> I really enjoy watching you squirm every time you try to drag Pakistan into the discussion. I truly do!
> 
> Please read what I wrote about circular arguments and (false) _a priori_ assumptions. Show us where in Dooley's course he waits for Muslims to 'declare total war' before triggering his retaliation.
> 
> How exactly does a politically, culturally and ethnically diverse group of 1.4 billion people 'declare total war' anyway?
> 
> He probably would have, and there is a non-zero probability that someone may still. How does that justify nuking Mecca? How will nuking Mecca solve the problem of terrorism?


*
Off topic, but just wanted to ask this rhetorical question. If, suppose, pakistan and other Islamic nations had the capability to deliver nuclear weapons to US and Europe, considering the amount of venom these country's citizens are fed with against the west, wouldn't they already have nuked US?

US got attacked by extremists during 9/11 and others. The US today has the capability to vaporize all Islamic nations in the matter of minutes. But it is very merciful towards these nations and only targets selective nations where terrorists thrive like Afghanistan. Civilian casualty in the hand of US military is very low/

US shows far, far more restraint and responsibility than Islamic nations if you ask me.*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Developereo

S-19 said:


> *
> Off topic, but just wanted to ask this rhetorical question. If, suppose, pakistan and other Islamic nations had the capability to deliver nuclear weapons to US and Europe, considering the amount of venom these country's citizens are fed with against the west, wouldn't they already have nuked US?
> 
> US got attacked by extremists during 9/11 and others. The US today has the capability to vaporize all Islamic nations in the matter of minutes. But it is very merciful towards these nations and only targets selective nations where terrorists thrive like Afghanistan. Civilian casualty in the hand of US military is very low/
> 
> US shows far, far more restraint and responsibility than Islamic nations if you ask me.*



How many countries have nuclear weapons?
How many countries have *USED* nuclear weapons?

What you are saying, in your typical shameless way, is that little brown people just can't be trusted with responsibility.


----------



## King Solomon

Developereo said:


> ...... in your typical shameless way...........


 
*Firstly, please spare the personal attack.. I've not said anything to warrant a response like that from you.*



> What you are saying, in your typical shameless way, is that little brown people just can't be trusted with responsibility.


*
You extrapolated that, I neither said nor meant anything like that. What I was saying is, considering the amount of venom and anti-western extremist propaganda the population is fed in Islamic nations, had they the capability to deliver nuclear weapons to US/Europe, they would have already done so and killed hundreds of millions of people. A few days ago I talked to a member in the forum who expressed explicit desire to "obliterate" the US and "kill hundred million Americans"..

Compare this with the reaction of US, which had nuclear weapons from 1945. Got attacked by muslim extremists in 9/11 as well as numerous attacks in the western world in general. Sacrificed thousands of lives. Muslim citizens in US/Europe still live in complete freedom and enjoys all rights as a normal citizen would.

Last time we saw, a mere drawing of Prophet Mohammed's cartoon meant boycotting Danish goods completely! 

See the disparity between the reactions? You decide what would be the reaction if Islamic nations possessed nuclear delivery means to US/Europe!

Who is more mature? Who is responsible? Who is sensible? Who shows restraint? Islamic nations or the west? Let us put the Islamic nations in place of west. What would Muslims do if they were in the place of west? You decide.*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Developereo

There's enough off-topic discussion already. Open another thread.


----------



## King Solomon

Developereo said:


> There's enough off-topic discussion already. Open another thread.


 
*Not really off topic... You and Gambit were discussing the legality of the course material. In my opinion, it is fully legal (although not on moral grounds) because it envisages a contingency situation (I've learnt this after reviewing the slides).

I tried to reverse the roles and make a relative comparison. What would Islamic nations do if they were in place of US?

Anyway, looks like I outwitted you...*


----------



## King Solomon

VCheng said:


> It is not just a perception: Militant Islamic fundamentalism, and the terrorism it has already spawned, is a real threat to all of modern civilization as most countries would know it, not just the West.


 
*Actually, Pakistan is one of the biggest sufferer due to Islamic fundamentalism herself. As per statistics, already 100,000+ lives have been lost due to insurgency and civil war.

This is a little perplexing because most Pakistan people like to blame the west for war against Islamic fundamentalism when they are themselves one of the biggest victims of the ideology.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

S-19 said:


> .Actually, Pakistan is one of the biggest sufferer due to Islamic fundamentalism herself. As per statistics, already 100,000+ lives have been lost due to insurgency and civil war.
> 
> This is a little perplexing because most Pakistan people like to blame the west for war against Islamic fundamentalism when they are themselves one of the biggest victims of the ideology.



It is not perplexing at all; the elite have refined the use of the foreign bogeyman concept to a fine art to keep the people's attention diverted from the real issues that blight their lives and rob them of a better future.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Developereo said:


> I specifically said that the US administration decides whom the US military engages as targets. Where do drug users come into this?


*YOU* brought them in with the drug cartels. Panama was a US ally. But Noriega was *THE* Head of State of that ally. He was no mere corrupt politician in the pay of the Panamanian crime syndicate. His position and status as Head of State allow the Panamanian organized crime to ignore, not merely fear, any laws inside that state. This is no longer incompetence but deliberate and it is beyond the capability of any law enforcement, local or even national, to deal with heads of states. So if you insist that the US military take actions against the drug cartels, then it is only logical that the US military must take actions against internal drug users as well.



Developereo said:


> They are both threats to national security and they both fit the prerequisites of Dooley's drastic action. Those are the salient issues.


Wrong. The drug cartels are threats to national security in the sense that they will use their organizations to facilitate Islamic terrorism, just as we once feared that they would do the same for communist terrorism. But as far as the illegal hallucinogenic substances go, if the US declare them legal, that problem would go away. We cannot do the same for Islamic terrorism. These vital differences that you must ignore in order to condemn the contents of Dooley's presentation.



Developereo said:


> I really enjoy watching you squirm every time you try to drag Pakistan into the discussion. I truly do!


No, you fear it. You know that what I said is true. Even your own countrymen here admitted it.



Developereo said:


> Please read what I wrote about circular arguments and (false) _a priori_ assumptions. Show us where in Dooley's course he waits for Muslims to 'declare total war' before triggering his retaliation.


See slide 7.



Developereo said:


> How exactly does a politically, culturally and ethnically diverse group of 1.4 billion people 'declare total war' anyway?


See Al-Qaeda's followers. See where they came from? See those 'lone wolfs' attempts at terrorism inside the US. Did you miss that one of them was Pakistani-American? What origin is US Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan?



Developereo said:


> He probably would have, and there is a non-zero probability that someone may still. How does that justify nuking Mecca? How will nuking Mecca solve the problem of terrorism?


Does not solve it. It would be a retaliation. That is how war works. Currently, there are two states that are capable of waging a religious nuclear war on US: Iran and Pakistan. Deal with it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Developereo

gambit said:


> So if you insist that the US military take actions against the drug cartels, then it is only logical that the US military must take actions against internal drug users as well.



Since you seem to have trouble differentiating between drug lords and drug users, it's understandable you should get confused.

Or, more likely, you are hunting for another strawman as usual...



gambit said:


> Wrong. The drug cartels are threats to national security in the sense that they will use their organizations to facilitate Islamic terrorism, just as we once feared that they would do the same for communist terrorism. But as far as the illegal hallucinogenic substances go, if the US declare them legal, that problem would go away. We cannot do the same for Islamic terrorism. These vital differences that you must ignore in order to condemn the contents of Dooley's pd resentation.



No, what matters are the characteristics that Dooley uses for his scenario. This is not a comparison of random, myriad characteristics, but only the ones relevant to the discussion here, i.e. Dooley's course.

I already listed the parallels. Drug cartels target American civilians, terrorize large groups of people, operate in and control vast areas of sovereign countries, and do not follow Geneva Conventions. They are already considered a threat to national security (quite apart from any links to AQ types).



gambit said:


> No, you fear it. You know that what I said is true. Even your own countrymen here admitted it.



The issue is not whether something is allegedly true or not, but whether it is relevant to the discussion.



gambit said:


> See slide 7.



All he says is that if moderate Islam cannot control terrorism, then... As I pointed out earlier, this is SOP #1 for bigots to justify their prejudice. I urge you to educate yourself about the history of race relations in the US, for example, to understand that Dooley's arguments are old, hackneyed tricks of bigotry.

For people familiar with the history of race relations, Dooley's poison is nothing new or original. That is why he US administration took action on his course, not because of any 'political correctness' pressure.



gambit said:


> See Al-Qaeda's followers. See where they came from? See those 'lone wolfs' attempts at terrorism inside the US. Did you miss that one of them was Pakistani-American? What origin is US Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan?



And, again, how does that translate to 1.4 billion people 'declaring total war'?



gambit said:


> Does not solve it. It would be a retaliation. That is how war works.



Not at all. War does not involve deliberate collective punishment. At least, according to the established rules of war in Geneva, it's not supposed to. As a signatory, the US is expected to behave by international norms.

Of course, the whole debate here is that Dooley wants to do away with the Geneva Conventions. And some of you here are defending that course of action.


----------



## Peregrine

First they manipulated the public opinion in America with explicit propaganda against Muslims and now they are preparing their military to attack Muslim world. America is overtly leading a 21st century crusade war against Islam, though this time, these ''Kaafir Crusaders'' have concocted bundle of excuses to conceal their true intentions. A storm is brewing and the Muslim world must gear up ASAP.


----------



## gambit

Peregrine said:


> *First they manipulated the public opinion in America* with explicit propaganda against Muslims and now they are preparing their military to attack Muslim world. America is overtly leading a 21st century crusade war against Islam, though this time, these ''Kaafir Crusaders'' have concocted bundle of excuses to conceal their true intentions. A storm is brewing and the Muslim world must gear up ASAP.


Oh yeah...And this manipulation of public opinion is certainly the first in the world.  The muslim countries do not engage in such at all. No, sir. All are transparent to the public. Absolutely. So I guess those 'Death to America' rallies are true expressed sentiments of the muslims. Damn good declarations of war, I say.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sur

This does NOT belong to funny thread, rather to a "serious" thread  ...
=
Chachu Bush diyan Chalakiyan, part 1 - YouTube
=
Chachu Bush di Chalakiyan, part 2 - YouTube
=
http://youtu.be/B96REjlMQ68
=


----------



## Vinod2070

Oscar said:


> that I agree with.. but the officer himself wished for it.. and propagated it..and that ideology was transmitted to all his students ..some of whom may adapt it.
> somewhat like a seminary where terrorism was being taught in the lieu of religious teachings with the authorities not having a clue about it till it till much later.
> 
> Ill state it as my belief that the US at its core is NOT, NEVER going to be at war with Islam *since Islam is a part of the American foundation..*
> But there are Americans that have decided to take up a war on Islam.. just as Islamic extremists(much more in number) have done on the other side.


 
Some people make this comment just to partake of a success story. It remains completely false.

Islam has nothing to do with American or Western foundation. Thought it has everything to do with the foundations of the likes of Saudi, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia and all.

What exactly is Islamic about USA which was explicitly based on Judo-Christian value system and Greco-Roman civilization heritage?


----------



## Vinod2070

Oscar said:


> Depends on the cause..
> Suicide is not an option.. but when it comes to protecting the religion.. and not that distorted version taught to these fanatics.. but the original message best understood...
> yes.. Ill probably sacrifice myself before I have had the chance to have children.
> *Against all aggressors.. be it even from a seminary 50km from my house.*


 
A lot many make these comments.

On anonymous forums!

And leave it at that. Perhaps that is enough?



Oscar said:


> depends on the value of lives..
> The deterrence is just that..
> The Israelis fight for each life they call their own..
> On the other hand.. Pakistanis hold little value for life when it comes to religion...*whats losing 50 million when such a catastrophe has occurred.*



*I always thought you had no issues with such things!

After all, you and your fellow Islamic travelers make light and fun of what the barbaric Islamic invaders did to the worship places of Pakistanis' ancestors.

Some examples here, including by you.*



Oscar said:


> Somnath ka Mandir jiss ne bhi tora..
> paise aap ki jaib se katien ge






Oscar said:


> Havent you heard of the "somnath ka mandir" thing?
> After all.. It hurts more when you hear someone from your soil tell you contrary to something you believe in than it hurts when somebody from outside says it so..
> I wont get irked if some stranger starts saying I look like a goof.. but it sure will hurt if my brother says so.


 


FlyingEagle said:


> Dil sa Desi kay ly:
> 
> Education board's chairman visit to a village high school. He goes to ninth standard and ask a question:
> Chairman: Somnat ka mandir kis na torra?
> Student: Allah di kasmy ma ni torya.
> Teacher (Apni stick uthaty huvy): OO jay tu torya ay manda kyun ni?
> 
> (All three of them goes to the principal)
> 
> Chairman to Principal: Twady school cy kisi nu pata hi ni k somnath ka mandir kis na tora
> Principal: Sir 1 ganta(Hour) do ma pata kara dyna a k kis na a harkat kiti ay.
> 
> Chairman went back and wrote a letter to education board and explain the situation that no one knows k somnath ka mandir kis na tora. After few days a letter was received by the principal from Eucation board which states:
> 
> "Sanu vi ni pata k somnath da mandir kiny torya pr udi bharwai twadi tankhawa wicho hoi gi"


 
*For those who don't speak Hindi, these jokes are making fun of the destruction of the famous and highly revered Hindu temple of Somnath in Gujrat. At that time, the vast majority in the areas now called Pakistan (and Afghanistan) were following Dharmic religion.

They are enjoying Islamic bravery and piety!
*
One would think they will take the new happening with the same sporting spirit! No? 

*May be joke like: "Kaaba ka masjid jisne bhi tora, jurmana tujhe hi bharana hoga"!

(Whoever broke the kaaba mosque, you will have to pay the fine).*

Or is it going to be different this time with the (supposed) destruction of these structures (buts or statues in a way)?

*One thought structures were just like buts or statues and had nothing to do with Islam! Is that not so with these structures?

And you are supposed to be (and are) from the "moderate" group. You don't mind 50 million killed for these structures while you make fun of the destruction of others by your holy warriors!

It is just that what passes for a "moderate" in your cultural milieu is different from the rest of the world.*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## sarthak

pakdefender said:


> Its interesting to note that the presentation starts with 'So what can we do?' which seems to indicate that they have run out of options and all the weapons that they have been using till now have not got them the result they wanted!
> 
> This is is implicit acceptance of defeat!



Narrow minded people like you can never accept the reality. The only reason the US has "lost" in Iraq and Afghanistan is that they are good people and want these countries to prosper and bring normal lives to people in these countries. If by "victory" , you mean exterminating the population of a country , US could have done it within a few minutes. At the height of cold war (1966) , US had about 32000 nuclear warheads , most of them multimegaton. Now the theoretical number is around 2000 , but you can bet it is much more than that. Iraq , Afghanistan can be vaporised this instance if the US wants , and they have nothing to fight back with. Pakistan is the only muslim country with nukes , not to mention they are crude nukes with an yeild of about 50kt. Your most advanced missile , Shaheen 2 or 3 , i'm not sure, has a range of about 2000-2500km , It cannot reach the furthest part of India ( Andaman and Nicobar islands) , let alone the US. Even if this missile gets Supernatural powers and reaches the US, it will probably be destroyed by a defence sheild.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sur

*"I know u & ur frnds r fighting for American dream, just,, don't expect to win..."*
=
Following TV episode was aired on April-2001, it depicted 911 scenario, & few months later coincidentally movie scenario became real ,,, !!! 
=
The Lone Gunmen Pilot - 9/11 Predictive Programming - YouTube
=
=
Now they r showing plans for annihilation of Pakistan on TV series ,,, !!! May Allah protect Pakistan it's ppl from Dajjal; the left-eyed-great-deceiver...
(Hadees=whoever memorize/recites Surat # 18 (al-Kahf) on Fridays will be protected from the Dajjal.)
=
=
Last Resort Trailer - YouTube


----------

