US Military Class suspended for views on Islam

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

JB Books

Shooter Emeritus
Special Hen
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
14,111
Reaction score
192
Location
Hansenland
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 past decade that the U.S. 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 (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."

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 to the AP, saying "Can't talk to you, sir," and hanging up when reached by telephone at his office 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 U.S. 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 "a direct ideological and philosophical confrontation with Islam," 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 U.S. specifically.

"It is therefore illogical" to continue with the current U.S. strategy, which Dooley said presumes there is a way of finding common ground with Islamic religious leaders without "waging near `total war,"' 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 "Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism."

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 do not use anti-Islamic material.

On Thursday, Dempsey said the material in the Norfolk course was counter to American "appreciation for religious freedom and cultural awareness."

"It was just totally objectionable, against our values, and it wasn't academically sound," Dempsey said when asked about the matter at a Pentagon news conference. "This wasn't about ... pushing back on liberal thought; this was objectionable, academically irresponsible."

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

He described his purpose as generating "dynamic discussion and thought," while noting that his ideas and proposals are not official U.S. 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'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 terror. 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.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...uspended-for-its-view-on-islam/#ixzz1uij9qyCq
 

nemesis

Sharpshooter
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
1,102
Reaction score
485
Location
tulsa
The teaching in the military course was counter to repeated assertions by U.S. officials over the past decade that the U.S. is at war against Islamic extremists, not the religion itself.

I've always wondered about that assertion. The following quotations are taken verbatim from Islam's "holy" books. If a muslim is true to his religion, then he is required to wage war against non-muslims.

O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. [al-Ma'idah 5:51.11]
They are the Muslim's "inveterate enemies" (Sura 4:101).
Muslims are to "arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush everywhere" (Sura 9:5)
They are to "seize them and put them to death wherever you find them, kill them wherever you find them, seek out the enemies of Islam relentlessly" (Sura 4:90).
"Fight them until Islam reigns supreme" (Sura 2:193).
"Cut off their heads, and cut off the tips of their fingers" (Sura 8:12).
Slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. (Koran 9:5)
Take him and fetter him and expose him to hell fire. (Koran 69:30-37)
Muslims must make war on the infidels (unbelievers) who live around them (Sura 9:123).
Muslims are to be "ruthless to unbelievers" (Sura 48:29).
They should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides. (Koran 5:33)

Anyone who fights against Allah or renounces Islam in favor of another religion shall be "put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off alternative sides" (Sura 5:34).
Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him. Sahih Al-Bukhari (9:57)
I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them. (Koran 8:12)

If a Muslim does not go to war, Allah will kill him (Sura 9:39). He is to be told, "the heat of war is fierce, but more fierce is the heat of Hell-fire" (Sura 9:81).
A Muslim must "fight for the cause of Allah with the devotion due to him" (Sura 22:78)
A Muslim should "enjoy the good things" he has gained by fighting (Sura 8:69).
A Muslim can kill any person he wishes if it be a "just cause" (Sura 6:152).
Allah loves those who "fight for his cause" (Sura 61:3).
Know that paradise is under the shades of swords. Sahih al-Bukhari Vol 4 p55
 

Dale00

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
May 28, 2006
Messages
7,575
Reaction score
4,154
Location
Oklahoma
Open discussion and debate is a healthy thing. Why suppress it? Perhaps the politically correct ones are afraid their point of view is losing the argument.
 

indi

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
1,782
Reaction score
550
Location
Claremore
Well the one thing that all the terroists have in common is that they are ALL muslims!

Timothy McViegh? O i guess he doesnt count cause he's not muslim. I guess its the same reason that all klan members are white?!?!?!?! C'mon, really!


"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you ... Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die." -- Dt.13:6-10 (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)

No this is not from the Koran!

Say "NO!" to segrigation and seperation!!
 
Last edited:

druryj

In Remembrance / Dec 27 2021
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
21,469
Reaction score
17,728
Location
Yukon, OK
Some here have witnessed the horrors of collateral damage. What's right about some little four year old Muslim kid bleeding to death on the side of the road as a result of combat actions? Nothing. There's nothing right about that at all.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Top Bottom