American politics

[John Grey]

There is a very interesting report on "wired.com"

Soldiers in an army usually get taught, not just how to kill, but of course also what to think.

Here is a nice example of what american soldiers are taught, before they are given weapons for mass-murder, so they can defend "our" freedom.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012...tal-war-islam/

an excerpt: "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.”" and here is a bit more:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/tag/martin-dempsey/

"...the officer who delivered the lectures, Army Lt. Col. Matthew A. Dooley, still maintains his position at the Norfolk, Virginia college..."
Unsurprisingly, nobody saw a problem with those lectures BEFORE they were made public....

[TJrandom]

..."...the officer who delivered the lectures, Army Lt. Col. Matthew A. Dooley, still maintains his position at the Norfolk, Virginia college..."

Unsurprisingly, nobody saw a problem with those lectures BEFORE they were made public....

So you think that his lectures were vetted and pre-approved? Maybe they weren't, and only became public as they were spoken? Hence it was only possible to "see a problem" with them after they became public - you know, spoken/presented?

[edin日本]

Most likely it was done in the context of a wargame. Every military conducts wargaming simulations against friend and foe alike. Hell we even used to wargame how best to take out the US.

We'll get Richard Rohmer to write a book about it. Call it something catchy like the Jihadi Gambit....

[Super Grover]

So you think that his lectures were vetted and pre-approved? Maybe they weren't, and only became public as they were spoken? Hence it was only possible to "see a problem" with them after they became public - you know, spoken/presented?

Media needs news stories. I do think it is a problem if the course went on for so long without anyone objecting. Does that imply anything about the people who comprise the military at that level? Their boss was majorly upset, so hopefully it does not. Yet I wonder. After all, we all witnessed the wonder that was Jinseinosensei on this very site. Imagine if he had ever been promoted (best not to). I rather doubt that the curriculum is vetted much, but if it is like a normal university, something has to be written as a course description (not like the oone below) and virtually all of us have to provide at least a skeleton syllabus.

"In this course, by mastering plausible deniablity strategies, you will be shown how to systematically eradicate the world's islamic population."

[edin日本]

"In this course, by mastering plausible deniablity strategies, you will be shown how to systematically eradicate the world's islamic population."

That would work but, let's reword it a bit:

From the course curriculum of the Royal Military College of Canada

"In this course, by mastering strategies in plausible deniability, methods of financial sabotage, intermediate and advanced tactics in guerrilla warfare and bomb making strategies you will be shown how to systematically eradicate the financial and physical infrastructure of the United States of America."

Now, that would be a good course!

[John Grey]

So you think that his lectures were vetted and pre-approved? Maybe they weren't, and only became public as they were spoken? Hence it was only possible to "see a problem" with them after they became public - you know, spoken/presented?

no, no... I am sure it was only an accident... no military mindset could find the content acceptable.

PS: of course that goes only in connection with your oh-so-true statement "after they became public"