Military class suspended for view on Islam

[JJ_BPK]

I think someone should buy Lt Col Dooley a beer..

And help him find a new job...

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.

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 U.S. officials over the last decade that the U.S. is at war against Islamic extremists — not the religion.

"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."

He adds: "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...)."

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."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/10...#ixzz1uYeJXYtD

continued:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/10...view-on-islam/

Here is Lt Col Dooley's presentation in PDF format..

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

[cbtengr]

"theoretical war plan"

I think thats the key phrase here, and I agree someone should buy him a beer. I guess he missed the lecture about getting them to like us.

[JimP]

Our new Army Chief of Staff - General Dempsey himself - canked this class and initiated the review of purging anti-Islamic materials from our professional development courses. Where do we get these guys...?? Is there some sort of "refresher-lobotomy" required when you achieve a certain 'status"?? Has he not been aware of the fight we've been in the last 33 years??

But I guess he fits right in with the current administration - with thinking like this, we are doomed as a Nation.

[Streck-Fu]

Islam has been at war with every other religion since the they razed northern Africa and southern Europe in the 7th Century.

[afchic]

Originally Posted by JimP

Our new Army Chief of Staff - General Dempsey himself - canked this class and initiated the review of purging anti-Islamic materials from our professional development courses. Where do we get these guys...?? Is there some sort of "refresher-lobotomy" required when you achieve a certain 'status"?? Has he not been aware of the fight we've been in the last 33 years??

But I guess he fits right in with the current administration - with thinking like this, we are doomed as a Nation.

Well at least your CoS hasn't revamped the checklist for billeting rooms in which the Bible does not need to be replaced if found missing, because someone claimed they were offended by them

[airbornediver]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Is America's enemy really Islam though, or just radical Islam/Islamic extremists? The Islamic extremists commit so much of the violence, that they give the whole religion a bad name which can make people skeptical about the idea of a large number of peaceful Muslims out there, but what if those really exist? I think the U.S. should always distinguish between the radicals of a religion and the peaceful portions of it. This can be tricky as I've heard of some polls conducted where they found that many peaceful Muslims approve of the actions of the radicals, meaning there is a difference between "peaceful" Muslims who simply do not commit violent acts, but otherwise are okay with them, versus I guess what you could call "liberal Muslims" (in the classical sense) who respect human rights and freedoms and other religions. For example, in Michael Durant's book "In the Company of Heroes," he writes about how the guy who took care of him was a Muslim, and read the Koran, but gave him a Bible and respected him for his religion.



Could someone claim to be offended by the Koran?

I also found this link on the side of the articles linked to hilarious: Developer Plans 200-Foot Tall Cross in Missouri

A very logical and rational statement, and I concur. Fundamentalists of any religion give that religion a bad name. It is up to the moderates of those religions to marginalize the effectiveness and overshadow the message(s) of the fundamentalists. This is something that moderate Muslims have failed to do in epic fashion but that isn't an excuse to bash the whole religion.

[The Reaper]

I thought we were encouraging people to think outside the box?

Were the German people accountable for the sins of the Nazis?

Did we force them to pay for the Nazis, regardless of whether they were or not?

TR

[mark46th]

Col Cooley sounds like he studied under General Curtis LeMay. Everyone should...

[PRB]

Actually we are at war with Islam....not 'Radical Islam'.
If you study the religion it is a warlike theopolitcal system that does not tolerate other religions or political systems unless they are subjugated in a Dhimmi status.
The terrorists are practicing true Islam as it is written and as Muhammed demonstrated thru out his life.
Muhammed is the most perfect example of a human being (as any Muslim will tell you) and is to be emulated...not in some abstract manner but 'as he lived'...as 'he spread the word' etc.
Radical Islamists are practicing true Islam as it is written.
All Muslims must either take up the sword, or if unable, to support those that do...with money, refuge, subterfuge (CAIR) ......most choose the later but if pushed, will almost always side with a Muslim against the Kafir....it is haram not to do so.
The defunct 'class' had it right.

[Ambush Master]

Originally Posted by PRB

Actually we are at war with Islam....not 'Radical Islam'.
If you study the religion it is a warlike theopolitcal system that does not tolerate other religions or political systems unless they are subjugated in a Dhimmi status.
The terrorists are practicing true Islam as it is written and as Muhammed demonstrated thru out his life.
Muhammed is the most perfect example of a human being (as any Muslim will tell you) and is to be emulated...not in some abstract manner but 'as he lived'...as 'he spread the word' etc.
Radical Islamists are practicing true Islam as it is written.
All Muslims must either take up the sword, or if unable, to support those that do...with money, refuge, subterfuge (CAIR) ......most choose the later but if pushed, will almost always side with a Muslim against the Kafir....it is haram not to do so.
The defunct 'class' had it right.

I have been saying, for a very long time and in here, that the "True Radical Islamists" are those that are willing/want to live in Harmony and Peace with the rest of the World!!!

Later
Martin

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Ambush Master

I have been saying, for a very long time and in here, that the "True Radical Islamists" are those that are willing/want to live in Harmony and Peace with the rest of the World!!!

Later
Martin

You aren't alone in that belief.

[PRB]

Originally Posted by Dusty

You aren't alone in that belief.

I agree.
Basically 3 types of Muslims.
1.Those that follow the Quran's unabrogated tenets and the 'Life of Muhammed' and take up the sword (BTW, the only written Quranic way of positive induction to heaven is to die a Martyr) everything else is 'iffy'.
2. Those afraid to do so, for family, or their way of life but they support violent Jihad thru donations and organized programs that spread the faith thru subterfuge (Saudi Royal Family who for free builds million dollar mosques in Dearborn staffed with extremist Wahabbi Imams)...smile, take the oil money, send the enemy into your own ranks.
3. Those that 'cherry pick' Quranic verses (many officially abrogated and nonsense to an Islamic scholar) and ignore a great deal of the Quran as 'out of context'....these are your supposed 'mainstream non radical Muslims'....like the disenfranchised out of culture Euro's/Americans that take up Islam like it's a cool hobby and a great deal of ME and Indonesian well meaning folks.

[SRT31B]

PRB: you're right on.

Anyone who has ever actually read the Koran or studied Islam at all knows this PC nonsense is a load of crap.

Besides, how in the world could I take the moderate Muslim at their word when their religion specifically advocates lying if it serves Islam's purposes and advances the spread of their faith?

I think "Islamic extremist" is a misnomer in that if you understand the true purpose and ideology of Islam you know that those we classify as "extremist" are simply strict followers of the religion as opposed to the more "secular" (or back-slidden if you're from the south) Muslim's who simply choose to ignore the Suras which address jihad and the like. Also, through the process of abrogation, all the "kind hearted" verses that Islamic apologists so often quote have been canceled and replaced with the more violent calls to action (i.e. Sura 9:5 as one example)

Just as Islam is really more of a totalitarian system of control for an entire society which stifles all thought and opposing views, so is political correctness in our society. The people that are actually "offended" by this course I would almost bet never actually read a single verse in a Koran.

Shame on our leadership for pulling this course.

Just my .02 anyway.

Take Care.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by SRT31B

Just as Islam is really more of a totalitarian system of control for an entire society which stifles all thought and opposing views, so is political correctness in our society..

I think you're conflating authoritarianism with totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is generally regarded as possible only under a modern state in which the government expands a political philosophy--not religious beliefs--to cover every aspect of everyday life. As Islamicists are avowedly antimodern and want religion--not politics--to drive everyday life, their doomed quest for a global caliphate cannot, by definition, be regarded as totalitarian in nature.

Also, is your characterization of the impact "political correctness" on American society historically sustainable? Even during those intervals when the pressure for "political correctness" reached a peak, dissenting thoughts and opposing views actually flourished. For example, following the Compromise of 1850, notwithstanding a wide spread effort among Americans to present the package of legislation as a "final settlement" of the debate over the extension of slavery, the debates over America's peculiar institution began anew with little delay.*

Furthermore, your implicit comparison between Islam and American liberalism may be slightly hyperbolic. The News Corporation, not the left, pulled the plug on Glenn Beck. Despite calls for his job, Rush Limbaugh continues to do his thing. And Fox News remains Fox News. Meanwhile, people comment relentlessly about the president, his incompetence, and his misguided policies on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and on BBs like PS.COM. If, as you suggest, liberals are as determined as Islamicists to silence debate, what accounts for the persistence of these many avenues of dissent?

As for LTC Dooley, one does not need to have an opinion one way or another on the fundamental nature of Islam to have concerns with his instuction. IIRC, a fundamental premise of modern war is that military operations are an instrument of policy. By suggesting a strategy that would result in a global war against 1.6 billion people in approximately 200 countries, the wholesale slaughter of civilians, and the destruction of historically significant places, he seeks to turn the relationship between national security policy and war on its ear. (He specifically changes this relationship on slide seven.)

As you are a person who has an interest in "reading about US history," can you point to any example of a state taking that approach to warfare and coming out on the other side saying "We won"?

Finally, given your studied view of Islam and Muslims, would a war of "all against all" that pits non-Islamic nation states against Muslims world wide strengthen or weaken the Westphalian system that the Islamicists want to overthrow?


_________________________________________
* On this point, see David M. Potter, The Impending Crisis: America Before The Civil War, 1848-1861, comp. and ed. by Don E. Fehrenbacher (1976; reprint, New York: Harper Perennial, 2011), 121-124. Other examples include the persistence of dissent throughout the Second Anglo-American War, following America's entry into the Great War, and the response of many Americans to the Second Red Scare.

[Richard]

I understand such "brainstorming" and its necessity as it was a constant for us, too. However, I'd be curious to know why/how this "brainstorming" session came about, who signed off on its inclusion as a constant in the JFC curriculum, and what - if anything - has occurred in regards to the school's chain-of-command which had to have approved it all.

Oh...and remember...GEN Dempsey was the former CG, Training and Doctrine Command and known for his exceptionally fine-tuned 'word-smithing' abilities.

And so it goes...

Richard