[77rexulceme]

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012...&viewall=true/



The US military was teaching its recruits and ranking personnel that there is no such as a moderate Muslim, that Islam has declared a war on the West, etc. and the solution is to wipe out Muslims to such an extent that Islam becomes a cult, rather than a religion and also to destroy Makkah Mukarramah and Madinah Munawwarah.

These are the real terrorists.

Some samples of what was being taught:
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/da...design_v11.pdf
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/da..._the_enemy.pdf
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/da...brief_JFSC.pdf
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/da...slamic_law.pdf
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/da...-2011-JFSC.pdf
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/da...you_can_do.pdf

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.

[vernotixas]

ASWW
In their dreams Islam would change! We are coming for you,your family, your mum, your dad your sister, your brother, your uncle, your aunts and ... and yaa dont forget.... everyone!!!
InshaAllah!

[xIuvyAuT]

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.”

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.”

nuclear attacks on the Muslims? - if this is being taught to American soldiers then Saudi Must Develop a Nuclear or other effective Deterrent if they wish to continue being considered as protectors of the Holy Cities.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________


"Allahumma aslih Ummata Muhammad.
Allahumma farrij'an Ummati Muhammad.
Allahhumma rahm Ummata Muhammad(SAW)".


O Allah! Improve the state of Ummah of Muhammad.
O Allah! Grant ease to the Ummah of Muhammad.
O Allah! Have mercy on the Ummah of Muhammad (SAW).

{dua of Imam Ma'ruf al-Karkhi, an imam during the time of the sahaba}.
`
and

"Allahumma munzilal kitabi,
warii'al-hisaabi, ihzimil-ahzaaba.
Allahumma ihzimhum wa zalzilhum."


O Allah! Revealer of the book,
Swift to account,
defeat the groups (of those who reject faith).
O Allah! defeat them and shake them Ameen.


{Sahih Muslim 3:1362}

[vNZsk39B]

Deeply troubling. But when there are people within Islam who propgate as true Islam what exactly they allege, then I don't see how Muslims can put up a clean defense. Sooner ot later they will dig up from fiqh books , like the la madhabis and other half learned reformers, random opinions even out of context teachings, to show that this is what islam teaches and and that they were only showing the preventive measures.

Take one easy example: it says islam is a conquering religion. How would you react to it ? Calling it false would be a lie. And there are certain self declared "mujahideen" who believe this to be the way of islam. While others or most others believe it to be atleast a valid opinion in islam out of which some consider it inapplicable in todays aage. But such opinions as stated aat the end are declared as "bowing to the kufr law of the west" and hence shirk. So i wonder how memebers in this forum would react to the allegations made forth against Islam.

[77rexulceme]

Deeply troubling. But when there are people within Islam who propgate as true Islam what exactly they allege, then I don't see how Muslims can put up a clean defense. Sooner ot later they will dig up from fiqh books , like the la madhabis and other half learned reformers, random opinions even out of context teachings, to show that this is what islam teaches and and that they were only showing the preventive measures.

Take one easy example: it says islam is a conquering religion. How would you react to it ? Calling it false would be a lie. And there are certain self declared "mujahideen" who believe this to be the way of islam. While others or most others believe it to be atleast a valid opinion in islam out of which some consider it inapplicable in todays aage. But such opinions as stated aat the end are declared as "bowing to the kufr law of the west" and hence shirk. So i wonder how memebers in this forum would react to the allegations made forth against Islam.

Care to substantiate this claim of yours? There are always a few nuts or a few bad apples but saying that they are even remotely a representation of Muslims as a whole, as the rabid crusader tried to present Islam as, is highly troublesome and even more so when similar rhetoric is espoused by a Muslim.

Do Christians have to bend over backwards to apologize for the actions of the US army or the Westboro Baptist Church? Did Christians do such a thing for the actions of Hitler? Do Christians do the same for white supremacists?

Also, a lot of Muslims continue to wonder how these minority groups that say such ridiculous things (which amount to inciting violence) aren't arrested and are rarely deported.

The problem is, Christians and Christianity NEVER get associated with the wars perpetrated by their armies, whereas any Muslim group that carries out any attack, it is linked with Islam. Those of us who are not brainwashed know that the grievances that the mujahideen around the world have with the West are political in nature, not religious. It is a myth perpetrated in the West that Muslim mujahideen hates the West for its "freedoms", when the entire issue is political - anything else that is mentioned is only to rile up the troops on both sides (e.g. propaganda campaigns, denigrating the enemy so that it appears inhumane, etc.)

It becomes very evident when the crusader fails to ask a simple question after he states that Islam has become a threat in the past 30 years: why wasn't Islam a threat before that? Did Islam miraculously appear on this planet 30 years ago? Muslim lands had stopped expanding ever since the routing of the Muslim army at Tours. The only real significant gain after that was the conquest of Constantinople in the mid-15th century. So, even this view that Islam is here to conquer the world as a political force is unfounded. What we do have in Islam is that Islam is here so that everyone across the world may know its message, the same way Christians are supposed to preach their gospel to everyone - yet Christian missionaries that always follow any Christian army (one of the first civilian groups deployed to Iraq, for example, were Christian missionaries) are rarely if ever mentioned in the media. So, what is meant by Islam being a "conquering" religion does not refer to conquest of lands, but conquest of hearts and minds. Conquest of lands is usually a side effect which applies when any religion succeeds in conquering hearts and minds.

The solution is simple: get out of Muslim lands and stop supporting the governments in Muslim countries, either to "help" us or to hurt us. But of course, the simplest solution is not good enough when something irrational that can beat the drums of war is an alternative.

[vNZsk39B]

I would agree with you from a rhetorical point of view.

But my point is to look up what they allege upon Muslims and analyse whether shariah permits it or not. On the one hand if it is permitted by shariah then we are attacking the shariah itself in our attempt to attack their allegation. On the other hand, if it is part of shariah. Then we cant accuse them of making allegations and taking preventive measures. Either we accept the new world order principles of world order whereby we would have to abondon notions of cconquering with armed force non-muslim nations and applying shariah upon them as I have seen plenty of self decleared "mujahideen" fantasising. or we go back to the clash of civilization world order. I'm not sure if a middle way exists.

[BoomBully]

Personally, this is nothing new. It just shows that they really really are afraid of Islam. Just imagine that only with ak-47 and other simple weapons, the mujahidden with persmission from Allah , have made the kuffr powers to spend triilion of dollars over the last 10 years, and continuing to do so. Surely they are afraid if the whole Muslims would rise up. And what's extremely stupid is, if they nuke anywhere in the world, the radioactive effect will also spread to the States.

But all these conflicts are actually simple enough to be solved. Let the Muslims apply full sharia law within our own borders. Just like the US don't want other people to bother with their own domestic laws, so do the Muslims.

But they won't let the Muslims do it. The Quran and the Prophet have already reminded us that the kuffr won't be satisfied with the Muslims unless the Muslims leave our religion and follow their way of life. And if they think nuclear would deter us from applying sharia law, they should think twice.

Allah Knows Best.

[rNr5Di3S]

Care to substantiate this claim of yours? There are always a few nuts or a few bad apples but saying that they are even remotely a representation of Muslims as a whole, as the rabid crusader tried to present Islam as, is highly troublesome and even more so when similar rhetoric is espoused by a Muslim.

Do Christians have to bend over backwards to apologize for the actions of the US army or the Westboro Baptist Church? Did Christians do such a thing for the actions of Hitler? Do Christians do the same for white supremacists?

Also, a lot of Muslims continue to wonder how these minority groups that say such ridiculous things (which amount to inciting violence) aren't arrested and are rarely deported.

The problem is, Christians and Christianity NEVER get associated with the wars perpetrated by their armies, whereas any Muslim group that carries out any attack, it is linked with Islam. Those of us who are not brainwashed know that the grievances that the mujahideen around the world have with the West are political in nature, not religious. It is a myth perpetrated in the West that Muslim mujahideen hates the West for its "freedoms", when the entire issue is political - anything else that is mentioned is only to rile up the troops on both sides (e.g. propaganda campaigns, denigrating the enemy so that it appears inhumane, etc.)

It becomes very evident when the crusader fails to ask a simple question after he states that Islam has become a threat in the past 30 years: why wasn't Islam a threat before that? Did Islam miraculously appear on this planet 30 years ago? Muslim lands had stopped expanding ever since the routing of the Muslim army at Tours. The only real significant gain after that was the conquest of Constantinople in the mid-15th century. So, even this view that Islam is here to conquer the world as a political force is unfounded. What we do have in Islam is that Islam is here so that everyone across the world may know its message, the same way Christians are supposed to preach their gospel to everyone - yet Christian missionaries that always follow any Christian army (one of the first civilian groups deployed to Iraq, for example, were Christian missionaries) are rarely if ever mentioned in the media. So, what is meant by Islam being a "conquering" religion does not refer to conquest of lands, but conquest of hearts and minds. Conquest of lands is usually a side effect which applies when any religion succeeds in conquering hearts and minds.

The solution is simple: get out of Muslim lands and stop supporting the governments in Muslim countries, either to "help" us or to hurt us. But of course, the simplest solution is not good enough when something irrational that can beat the drums of war is an alternative.

an overall superb answer. part in bold is excellent. i was saying the same thing yesterday. why didnt muslims hate US before 90s?US system was the same in 18th century as it is now. but it did not persecute and oppress muslims till the 90s. if the mujahideen or the average muslim who isnt brainwashed had a problem with what US did on their own soil then why no uprising against the US in between 1790 and 1990?not even one?
it is clear that the mujahideen did what they had to do in the face of persecution and open war against Islam.
they see Islam as a threat to their oil, usury and self-created incorrect values. they will not stop until we become like them, and even then they will humiliate and maim us.
case in study: muslims in spain after their defeat (i.e moriscos)

[unmalryAlalry]

The US would not nuke Saudi, they need the oil. They will attempt to undermine Islam and turn it into just another religion like Christianity...something you keep personal and which does not apply in the public sphere. Attempts are already in place, all religions are equal and none of them should dominate...government, trade and commerce laws must be made by no religion, religion is private and personal.

Saudi only exists because it is protected by the US...if they refused to sell their oil for useless paper dollars they would be attacked. There are strong claims that Sadam Hussein was attacked because he was starting to sell his oil in paper Euros instead of the Dollar, and this would have threatened American power. Similar with Gadafi who wanted to sell his oil for gold.

I think Muslims are being worked on psychologically they want us to become followers of a quiet religion that stays at home and does not get involved with commerce and government. If you follow Islam and want it to be an economic and government level religion, you are branded a Terrorist or Fundamentalist...so you will go in the direction they want you to go. It is Psy-Ops used by the military to control the minds and bodies of 'enemy' populations.

ADDED THIS EDIT LATER ON:
Note so called Islamist Terrorism is not Islamic, the people who do this in the name of Islam are confused. They use Islamic words but they also use very modern Western methods of revolution and agitation. Their actions are used to smear Islam and Muslims who may call for the establishment of the Islamic Khalifah. This smearing makes genuine Islam look bad in the eyes of Muslims and non Muslims...it helps to make Muslims go towards becoming secularized...because they think that is the only alternative because the Governments of the West have framed it in this way. Either you are a Terrorist Fundamentalist or you are a secularised Muslim. The other alternative of working to establish Islam as a government and trade Law is real and must not be forgotten. We do not believe in violence we believe in the justice of Islamic law in trade and its mercy upon all humans.

[rNr5Di3S]

The US would not nuke Saudi, they need the oil. They will attempt to undermine Islam and turn it into just another religion like Christianity...something you keep personal and which does not apply in the public sphere. Attempts are already in place, all religions are equal and none of them should dominate...government, trade and commerce laws must be made by no religion, religion is private and personal.

Saudi only exists because it is protected by the US...if they refused to sell their oil for useless paper dollars they would be attacked. There are strong claims that Sadam Hussein was attacked because he was starting to sell his oil in paper Euros instead of the Dollar, and this would have threatened American power. Similar with Gadafi who wanted to sell his oil for gold.

I think Muslims are being worked on psychologically they want us to become followers of a quiet religion that stays at home and does not get involved with commerce and government. If you follow Islam and want it to be an economic and political religion, you are branded a Terrorist or Fundamentalist...so you will go in the direction they want you to go. It is Psy-Ops used by the military to control the minds and bodies of 'enemy' populations.

aoa,
great post akhi.

[Vemnagelignc]

Regardless of whether such a "total war" takes place, the battle of the hearts and minds has been raging and will get more intense in the coming years.

Even they come for the Holy cities, let them. Allah's plan will encompass them.
"And [remember, O Muhammad], when those who disbelieved plotted against you to restrain you or kill you or evict you [from Makkah]. But they plan, and Allah plans. And Allah is the best of planners." [8:30]

[77rexulceme]

I would agree with you from a rhetorical point of view.

But my point is to look up what they allege upon Muslims and analyse whether shariah permits it or not. On the one hand if it is permitted by shariah then we are attacking the shariah itself in our attempt to attack their allegation. On the other hand, if it is part of shariah. Then we cant accuse them of making allegations and taking preventive measures. Either we accept the new world order principles of world order whereby we would have to abondon notions of cconquering with armed force non-muslim nations and applying shariah upon them as I have seen plenty of self decleared "mujahideen" fantasising. or we go back to the clash of civilization world order. I'm not sure if a middle way exists.

The point is that Islam is targeted for actually setting rules and regulations on war. None of the other religions have such a thing. This is the main reason that Islamophobes see Islam as a religion of war. In reality, since Christianity and Judaism do not have any set rules of engagement, it is a blank cheque for them. They can make up any rules they want since their religion has no say in it. It is easy to justify the Holocaust in Christianity since there are no rules in that religion against it. It is easy to justify the cleansing of non-Jews by the Israelis because Judaism has no set rules. That is why whenever a Jew or a Christian does horrendous things, they aren't considered horrendous since the rules are made up. For example, the entire torture issue, where Muslims have been tortured in Gitmo isn't seen as a big problem to Christians since their religion is silent on this issue and since that is the case, they can define and redefine torture as much as they like.

And can you please tell me what mujahideen is fantasizing about conquering the world? We all want Islam to rule the world, just how Christians want Christianity to rule the world, and even secularists wanting secularism to rule the world. This "conquest" is only shown in a bad light when people see it as (only) military conquest, when it is not. And since Islam has rules of war, whenever Muslims are engaged in conquest, they are automatically representatives of Islam, whereas whenever Christians, Jews, Atheists, Hindus, etc. conquer, they are not seen as representative of Christianity - when in reality, they are.

The only wars that Christians associate with Christianity are the Crusades, and even then, they claim it is defensive. You don't see Christians apologizing about killing tens to hundreds of thousands of Muslim, Jew, and even Christian civilians. You don't see Christians apologizing about raping Muslim, Jew, and Christian women during the Crusades. You don't even see them apologizing about their cannibalism of Muslims. Christians are quick to point out that this or that goes against the nature of their religion but since their religion has no laws that govern them, it is, as I mentioned, a blank cheque to commit every heinous act under the sun and get away with it by saying that Christianity doesn't allow this (when in fact, Christianity allows everything).

[rNr5Di3S]

Photos of US soldiers' alleged rape, sexual abuse in Iraq

[rNr5Di3S]

Muslim toddler removed from US flight