Military Course Called For 'Muslim Hiroshima'

[dowie]

Yes but my whole point is that intervention wouldn't be required...

No need for violence to destroy authoritarian Islam in its current form.

65% of Iran's population is under 30... their police chief recently dismissed as 'lies' reports that 80% of Iranian students have relations with the opposite sex outside of marriage... the whole country will likely change within in the next decade or two regardless of any overt outside intervention.

 

[Tefal]

It felt like a bit of a non sequitur, but I guess he means that if they have a genuine nuclear capability (warhead + delivery system) they can put anyone off intervening. That'd mean that they could suppress any internal 'problem' however they wanted, without having to fear a Libya-esque intervention.

also it means they can go gung ho nationalist and do a bit of a territory grab on any foreign "bogeymen" they have a traditional dislike of.

kinda like our government holds "war with France" in reserve for if the **** really hits the fan

 

[The Halk]

It doesn't sound good, obviously... but could it have been a course where they just discuss hypotheticals, to explore moral issues/the ethics of war, or whatever?

My thoughts too. I think any training exercise has to rely on at least some hypothetical situations - and I'd be much happier that they looked at the faint possibilities, than just restricted themselves to what could happen plausibly in the very near future.

However I do wonder if it's been suspended because whoever wrote it took it as an excuse to go on a figurative crusade... and there's a whole lot of right wing christian nutjobs in the US.

 

[kwerk]

Yes but my whole point is that intervention wouldn't be required...



65% of Iran's population is under 30... their police chief recently dismissed as 'lies' reports that 80% of Iranian students have relations with the opposite sex outside of marriage... the whole country will likely change within in the next decade or two regardless of any overt outside intervention.

Yep.

Iranian rap is pretty good actually.

This one's better:

 

[Twirlywoos]

Fixed.

no When is fine

 

[Twirlywoos]

It is more about Western Liberalism v Islamist Extremism......which is something entirely different to Islam.

Well to both sides each other appears extreme.

 

[The Halk]

Western Liberalism is not extreme. It's not Western Liberalism vs Islamist Extremism. It's pretty much reactionary vs reactionary. It's only the nutjobs on either side looking for trouble.

 

[dowie]

But, for the sake of argument, so what if the majority of the population wants change? They could still suppress it, if they crack down really hard on everything/retain the support of the military.

maybe, but fairly unlikely... who are 'they' anyway...

again 65% of the population under 30 and large majority of them have distinctly more liberal attitudes out of sync with the current theocratic rulers ... in a decade or two 'they' are made up of currently the youth.

Doesn't even require a popular uprising per say for change to occur - could even be fairly gradual/seamless.

 

[kwerk]

I'm quite sure the pentagon has plans already written to do this to every country on earth even the UK.

http://www.damninteresting.com/americas-secret-plan-to-invade-canada/

 

[trigger-happy]

It's more western liberal states vs Islam, if anything. I don't think there's a religious motivation from the western actors, in terms of wanting to impose their religious beliefs... but they do want to stop ideas in the middle east which conflict strongly with the western idea of human rights, and liberal society (which kinda coincidentally means it's vs [some] Islam, as that's where lots of it stems from).

It's basically a rejection of cultural relativism, rather than both sides wanting to impose religious ideals.

I think its just down to natural resources and strategic military geographical locations on the world map. The yanks already got 1000 military bases around the world for what? "to improve stability"? As I see it, its gone more unstable than ever since the invasion of Iraq.

 

[Freakbro]

It doesn't sound good, obviously... but could it have been a course where they just discuss hypotheticals, to explore moral issues/the ethics of war, or whatever?

I wonder if this had been a course in Iran discussing the nuclear obliteration of the West you would have been so understanding that it was just an intellectual and theoretical exercise...

 

[Destination]

Yes but my whole point is that intervention wouldn't be required...



65% of Iran's population is under 30... their police chief recently dismissed as 'lies' reports that 80% of Iranian students have relations with the opposite sex outside of marriage... the whole country will likely change within in the next decade or two regardless of any overt outside intervention.

So you might think, yet in certain places, small amounts of radical people can still retain a massive influence, and when you stamp religion over the top of anything, the ability to reason with the person virtually disappears.
Several of the countries of the arab spring are actually moving towards more hard line positioning. Malaysia a developed country has over the past twenty years mived future towards radical thinking in its govt.

It remains to be seen what will happen to the rest.
Iran will fall all on its own, by its own people in a less messy way than Syria eventually, but that which surrounds Iran will be more like it, by the time Iran gets there.

 

[semi-pro waster]

It doesn't sound good, obviously... but could it have been a course where they just discuss hypotheticals, to explore moral issues/the ethics of war, or whatever?

Regardless of whether it was or wasn't a course on hypotheticals I'd think it shockingly remiss if there wasn't some consideration of how it would be perceived irrespective of intent. If you've really got to have a course like that (and without more information on it I'm not convinced you do) then having even some lines to state why it was necessary and how matters were approached seems like a bare minimum to deal with potential political fallout.

 

[Craterloads]

Of course, it was stupid. But I don't see a massive problem with the general idea... as long as it's run well, and not by an absolutely crazy guy who's trying to indoctrinate future generations of military leaders into thinking that all Islam is the enemy!

You do realise he was teaching future military leaders in the US army and that he was actually teaching them about waging war on ALL Islam not just a country or a select few.

Like teaching future military leaders how to wage war on all black people, nuking civilian areas etc, but if you dont see a problem with that....

"We have now come to understand that there is no such thing as 'moderate Islam'," Lt Col Dooley said in the presentation last July.

"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.

He added that international laws protecting civilians in armed conflicts - such as the Geneva Conventions were "no longer relevant".

That left open the option, the instructor continued, of applying the historical precedents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki" to Islam's holiest cities, and bringing about "Mecca and Medina destruction".

 

[Freakbro]

I'd probably have said the same thing...

I am pleased you think you would, though I guess it would put you in the minority

 

[Craterloads]

What if that's just the opening of a hypothetical discussion/role-play?

Think of it this way - when doing their military studies, they'll be told about the Geneva Conventions/rules of war/etc. Some of them might think, at some points, 'ffs, this is just stupid. These rules are retarded. Why can't we hood prisoners, ffs? Why can't we do [insert whatever, here]'. How's it best to educate on why these things are necessary? Or what's a good way to examine the background? Envisaging a scenario whereby those rules don't exist could be a good way of doing it... they could envisage a World where there are no human rights norms/rules of war... then they'd go down a path of using utilitarian methods (possibly)... but then they'd be like, 'ffs, these utilitarian methods are freaking bad, man!! I can now see why we have rules... '.

As an example.

If the stuff you quoted is him stating his opinion... yeah, it's bad. If it's him starting a hypothetical discussion... I can see the merits of it, if done in a good way.

You can see the merits in a hypothetical discussion about wiping out an entire creed of people including nuking of civilian areas, the murders of every single innocent muslim man, woman and child?

I don’t think you quite fathom what was being taught here to be honest as i can’t see any rational person justifying such "hypothetical" situations.

Just as I couldn’t fathom, for example, the UK Military discussing a hypothetical situation where they were to wipe out every single Jew on the planet. Including the nuking of Jerusalem and civilian cities.

Edit: Also as far as i can tell, he was not teaching them of an "hypothetical" situation.

 

[Zefan]

Totally agree with the people who say this isn't a big deal. I think it's been misinterpreted and is merely a discussion about hypothetical scenarios intended as educational, not actually suggesting it's a good idea.

 

[Craterloads]

I will have to disagree with you on your hypothical situation argument. For example you might as well be talking about the genocide of Ethiopia as it fits the bill, quite frankly i think your quite disturbed if you into this sort of stuff

Edit :: re: your edit. The quote just above sounds to me like it was a hypothetical situation... imagining there are no rules of war, comparing it to historical instances such as Dresden/Tokyo/Hiroshima/Nagasaki/etc.

Theres no "imagining" it was not in the context of a "hypothetical" situation. Ive read the story on a few sites now and thats why i assume the coarse has been discontinued and condemmed by the Pentagon.

 

[RDM]

Theres no "imagining" it was not in the context of a "hypothetical" situation. Ive read the story on a few sites now and thats why i assume the coarse has been discontinued and condemmed by the Pentagon.

Of course it is a hyphothetical situation, the very first part of it "imagine the Geneva Conventions didnt apply" make it hypothetical. If you honestly think they were making real plans to wipe out Islam then you are deluded.

 

[Randomface74]

Isn't this a suitable plan to have if terrorists use a stolen nuke on the london olympics?

"oh no we love the muslims"... gimme a break.