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

[King Solomon]

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"?

 

[Audio]

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.

 

[SQ8]

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

 

[VCheng]

...........
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]

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?

 

[lem34]

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]

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]

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.

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.

The removal was for political correctness

So, according to you, refusing to declare 'total war on Islam' is 'political correctness'?

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[VCheng]

...........

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[VCheng]

.............
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.

 

[lem34]

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]

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.

 

[VCheng]

........ 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.