So you are saying that we cannot blame it on "Christians"?
In all honesty, looking through colonial history, if I were a native or slave, I'd rather be ruled by the Catholics of the late Spanish Empire than the Protestants of the American Colonies.
So you are saying that we cannot blame it on "Christians"?
It is astounding that it takes so little to get a country as powerful as the USA in a total annihilation mindset.
Firebombing Mekka sounds a bit extreme to me and yet they are cautioning against muslim extremism ... like destroying Mekka will make everything better somehow.
Of course, doing so will have the "positive" effect of making the war-on-terror permanent ... which is obviously terrible for everyone involved apart from military contractors.
Thank god that this guy wasn't in a position to make those decisions - he only taught those who might be in a position to make them later.
it's ridiculous that a guy toying with the idea of a global total war with a 'crusade against the heathen' mentality isn't considered an extremist
Most people likely do now think LeMay is an extremist because the tactics he advocated have been determined to be war crimes under the Geneva Conventions. But during WWII, he was much more mainstream. And look at how many people still think that such tactics may again occur given similar circumstances.
It is only because the current head of the JCoS thinks it is extremism that the US military no longer has people openly and publicly advocating these views. That may very well change again under a Republican administration.
People seem to ignore the fact that Le May fought and won the first nuclear war.
Most people likely do now think LeMay is an extremist because the tactics he advocated have been determined to be war crimes under the Geneva Conventions. But during WWII, he was much more mainstream. And look at how many people still think that such tactics may again occur given similar circumstances.
It is only because the current head of the JCoS thinks it is extremism that the US military no longer has people openly and publicly advocating these views. That may very well change again under a Republican administration.
Oh yes very impressive to win the only nuclear war where no one else had nukes.
Much like the British at Omdurman, winning a nuclear war when you are the only party with nuclear weapons isn't a very hard goal to accomplish.Are you claiming he didnt win?
Nuking Jerusalem would relieve us of one stupid mount. Your point being?Nuking Mecca would get rid of one very silly rock
Much like the British at Omdurman, winning a nuclear war when you are the only party with nuclear weapons isn't a very hard goal to accomplish.
I have trouble classifying something as a victory when the outcome never was in doubt.So you admit that a man with that attitude did win
Are you claiming he didnt win?
Technically it's much easier to destroy Israel with just one nuke, than trying to kill Muslims scattered in the world.Nuking Jerusalem would relieve us of one stupid mount. Your point being?
Im claiming its pointless to brag about it as though its an accomplishment. Its like winning a fist fight against an armless man or a car race against the wheel less car then going around and bragging about what an accomplishment it is.
I am NOT bragging. I loath the man. However he is useful to puncture people who say that total war doesnt result in victory.
Men such as Bomber Harris and Le May are practioners of total war.
They won.
The nations they fought against also used total war and lost. Total war isnt some magic win button, especially when you foolishly begin using total war on nations not even participating in the conflict.
Italy practiced Total War? Really? Please explain how they did that.
Ok, even if Italy did not live up to your standard of total war, what about Germany and Japan?
Are you going to try to tell me they were not engaged in total war?