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

They made a scenario for a global war against militant Islam.
Is it possible to go to war with an abstract concept? I mean, I know that politicians are very enthusiastic about claiming to have done so, but they don't generally mean it quite as literally as this.
 
Is it possible to go to war with an abstract concept? I mean, I know that politicians are very enthusiastic about claiming to have done so, but they don't generally mean it quite as literally as this.
Winner doesn't think that "militant Islam" is as abstract and nebulous as you do, remember?
 
They made a scenario for a global war against Islam. You do not understand the outrage correctly.



What are you even talking about?

My apologizes, I meant effeminate. Men these days have become soft and unable to make difficult decisions.
 
Did you mean to imply that women are all witless children, or do you just not think these things through?
 
Did you mean to imply that women are all witless children, or do you just not think these things through?

feminine≠effeminate

If something is meant to be black there is nothing wrong with it being black whereas if something is meant to be white and is black there is something wrong.

No I did not mean to imply that, many women are very intelligent and capable, some aren't, but so are some men.

Men should not be mollis

By the way, the [/SARCASM] tag was for everything above it.
 
adolf liked Muslims only because they could be cannon-fodder against his great "crusade" against International Jewry , and one is always reminded of the stories how he implied that he was one of them , the son of the illegitimate son . After Jews and Slavs were done with Muslims , no doubt we first , would be lined up in front of the gas chambers .

just like Kaiser was a Muslim , a certain British name is Muslim , indeed Obama is a Muslim do not mean it's all fiction for specific puppet mastering .
 
Firebombing Dresden you could at least say that Dresden was in Germany, and we were at war with Germany for its invasion of Poland (or if you prefer, its bombing of Pearl Harbour). Nuclear bombing Mecca, which is in Saudi Arabia, because of nothing that Saudi Arabia has done is a crucial difference - it's rather more like if we'd bombed Switzerland because the Germans had their bank accounts there.

me being me , let me say that despite the American attempts to explain it with white man's involvement , Pearl Harbour is a Japanese success and failure .

minor , pointless nitpicking only to add meat to some skimpy views on the subject . There's a view here in Turkey that certain Christian extremists desire the Armageddon and would not shy of a nuclear war to force God come down to Earth and give heaven to those extremists . Though in Turkey this is mostly followed by long winded speeches on why one must avoid those extremist views head on and all . The Turkish idiom being we are shown death , so that we will accept malaria .
 
Is it possible to go to war with an abstract concept? I mean, I know that politicians are very enthusiastic about claiming to have done so, but they don't generally mean it quite as literally as this.

Winner doesn't think that "militant Islam" is as abstract and nebulous as you do, remember?

Irrelevant talk, but you two enjoy it.

For some reason, people are surprised that in its war against Islam, America consider using terrorist and genocidal methods of achieving victory.

First, America is not at war against Islam, or at least that is what its politically correct politicians go to such lengths to affirm.

Second, running hypothetical scenarios ranging from "realistic" (do we bomb Iran to stop it from getting the bomb) to "nuts" (how are we going to stop Canada from conquering New England) is a part of military planning. Deal with it. I am pretty sure your illustrious homeland (is it still Russia?) has made plans for using "terrorist and genocidal methods" in its simulated wars against NATO nations. So stop this pot calling the kettle black nonsense, it leads nowhere.

Firebombing Dresden you could at least say that Dresden was in Germany, and we were at war with Germany for its invasion of Poland (or if you prefer, its bombing of Pearl Harbour). Nuclear bombing Mecca, which is in Saudi Arabia, because of nothing that Saudi Arabia has done is a crucial difference - it's rather more like if we'd bombed Switzerland because the Germans had their bank accounts there.

It's not, if your enemy is "Islam" and you consider Saudi Arabia as the spiritual centre of it (not to mention a major source of money for terrorists and Islamic radicals all around the world), then it becomes a target.

The same was true during the Cold War, when any nation affiliated with Global Communism (TM) was considered a target in case of a general war. Which just suggests the US generals have never got over losing their precious Soviet enemy. I bet some of them actually cried when the USSR dissolved.
 
adolf liked Muslims only because they could be cannon-fodder against his great "crusade" against International Jewry , and one is always reminded of the stories how he implied that he was one of them , the son of the illegitimate son . After Jews and Slavs were done with Muslims , no doubt we first , would be lined up in front of the gas chambers .

just like Kaiser was a Muslim , a certain British name is Muslim , indeed Obama is a Muslim do not mean it's all fiction for specific puppet mastering .

What?
 
First, America is not at war against Islam, or at least that is what its politically correct politicians go to such lengths to affirm.
That's right, "war" is just the term which is often used by polititians.

Second, running hypothetical scenarios ranging from "realistic" (do we bomb Iran to stop it from getting the bomb) to "nuts" (how are we going to stop Canada from conquering New England) is a part of military planning. Deal with it.
Correct too. I was merely replying to the question why people become so outraged with this message. This is because according to it, the USA considers the possibility to essentially put itself in the shoes of Nazi Germany and do far worse things than Islamic terrorists managed to do so far. This simply contradicts with "we are the good guys" mentality.

I am pretty sure your illustrious homeland (is it still Russia?) has made plans for using "terrorist and genocidal methods" in its simulated wars against NATO nations.
Do me a favor, show me any example of similar to OP statement involving "my illustrious homeland". I'm seriously asking - I've never heard of any scenario where Russia consider waging aggressive total war as a viable option. The only scenario where Russia declares possibility of nuking civilian population is facing a total war from external aggressor.
 
You'd actually think that you would force us to surrender after throwing a H-bomb on our most holy cities? That would just piss us off more and unite 1.4 billion of us.
 
Well, when they're apparently working from the idea of US military supremacy and a "proven" track record in Japan in August 1945, it makes sense.
 
I never suggested that it was remotely sane!
 
You'd actually think that you would force us to surrender after throwing a H-bomb on our most holy cities? That would just piss us off more and unite 1.4 billion of us.

I think that after the H-bomb part of the scenario, there would be far fewer than "1.4 billion of [you]" left. Just saying.
 
Well still Mecca and Medina aren't that big population centers as are Istanbul, Jakarta, Islamabad, Kuala Lumpur...
 
Yeah, somehow I missed that and just skipped straight to the bit where I make an ass of myself. My bad. :blush:

I had figured saying things that I would would never have said normally except in parody would have been a tip off, but I was wrong.

It's all good mmkay?
 
Back
Top Bottom