General Dempsey Attacks SpecOps Group for Protesting Whitehouse Leaks
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"What about the other picture of Susannah... you know the one I mean."
I hope no one posts "that" picture of SY again, talk about blowing
the bubble !
.
I hope no one posts "that" picture of SY again, talk about blowing
the bubble !
.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, not that one but you have now restored my faith in SY.
(The photo I was referring to was SY at age 60 or 70 that
someone posted a month or two ago).
.
(The photo I was referring to was SY at age 60 or 70 that
someone posted a month or two ago).
.
No, it was BEagle's soft spot.
BEagle's soft spot? Ewwww!!!!
Last edited by MrBernoulli; 4th Sep 2012 at 22:15.
Thread Starter
Dempsey is at it again.
He is all up in a dither over the lack of Political Correctness in Course Material being taught about Islamic Terrorism by Army Instructors. He has removed one Instructor over accusations course material being used by the Instructor were insulting to Islam.
That combined with his telephoning a Minister and telling him not to burn Qurans and also suggesting Youtube remove the controversial video show he has no concept of the Freedoms he is supposed to be defending.
The issue is not that the video and Quran burnings are the thing to do and not that they are useful as tools to those who incite violence in the Muslim countries around the World but the fact that Dempsey sought not to persuade but atttempt to pressure the folks despite them being very much within their rights to do what they did as offensive as it might be to some.
This White House and its current occupant is pushing the Islamist agenda to the detriment of the country and General Dempsey is too willing to get involved in political issues that he has no business being involved in.
He is all up in a dither over the lack of Political Correctness in Course Material being taught about Islamic Terrorism by Army Instructors. He has removed one Instructor over accusations course material being used by the Instructor were insulting to Islam.
That combined with his telephoning a Minister and telling him not to burn Qurans and also suggesting Youtube remove the controversial video show he has no concept of the Freedoms he is supposed to be defending.
The issue is not that the video and Quran burnings are the thing to do and not that they are useful as tools to those who incite violence in the Muslim countries around the World but the fact that Dempsey sought not to persuade but atttempt to pressure the folks despite them being very much within their rights to do what they did as offensive as it might be to some.
This White House and its current occupant is pushing the Islamist agenda to the detriment of the country and General Dempsey is too willing to get involved in political issues that he has no business being involved in.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They (the minister and the maker of the video - not knowing the content of the course which is being redacted I don't have an opinion on that) are falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre. First, their actions can be described in no other manner than intended to cause a disturbance; second, they (and much of the press) have attributed the issues of terrorism to being a problem with Islam (estimated 1.5 billion followers) rather than a problem with a smaller group of people who use Islam as a recruiting tool, much as the Papal States used Christianity as a recruiting tool several hundred years ago.
Freedom of speech is a very powerful tool, as the Christian church learned to its chagrin at the time of the Renaissance, but "with great power comes great responsibility" (quote attributed to Uncle Ben, Peter Parker's father figure, or Voltaire - take your pick).
Freedom of speech is a very powerful tool, as the Christian church learned to its chagrin at the time of the Renaissance, but "with great power comes great responsibility" (quote attributed to Uncle Ben, Peter Parker's father figure, or Voltaire - take your pick).
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you believe Wikipedia:
(emphasis mine)
In April 2012, a course on Islam at the Joint Forces Staff College was suspended when it was revealed that students were being taught that all Muslims, not just terrorists, are enemies of the United States, and that it would be justified to "obliterate the Islamic holy cities of Mecca and Medina without regard for civilian deaths". The instructor, Army. Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley, also taught that in the current conflict, the Geneva Conventions are "no longer relevant." The Pentagon launched an inquiry to determine whether Dooley had acted on his own initiative, or been given the approval of superiors for his course material.
Thread Starter
I don't believe Wik....but I do understand what I read....and Dooley's Course Materials are on line and available if you will look for them. Read them and make up your own mind.
Also recall the FBI, CIA, and all other Federal Law Enforcement Agencies had to scrub all of their documents and course materials of material that put Islam or Muslims in a bad light. That came from a directive issued by Obama.
I suppose that videos of hostages having their heads hacked off by Al Qaeda while shouting Allah Akhbar had to be removed as it would have shown some Muslims in a bad light.
The point is there are bad Muslims....some Muslims do bad acts....some Muslims are Terrorists and commit terroristic acts. You cannot paint them any other way and tell the truth. The fact there are unflattering aspects to Islam when compared to Western values and beliefs is not avoidable as they are real and true.
So just how do you teach your people about all this without including material that would be considered offensive by the very people you are fighting a war against....the radical Islamists who are engaged in carrying out attacks on our Military, Diplomatic, and intelligence forces and our Civilian Population?
Remembering we still teach the use of Nuclear Weapons against those who have Nukes themselves....and I am sure there are courses that suggest the use against major Urban areas containing large numbers of Civilians.
So why do we scrub materials that are possibly offensive to Muslims but still teach Nuclear War?
Short answer....the occupant of the White House as we speak.... a guy who is very pro-Islam....who has undertaken a foreign policy of appeasement and a showing of weakness when confronted by a need to stand firm against Muslim interests that negatively affect our National Security Interests.
Also recall the FBI, CIA, and all other Federal Law Enforcement Agencies had to scrub all of their documents and course materials of material that put Islam or Muslims in a bad light. That came from a directive issued by Obama.
I suppose that videos of hostages having their heads hacked off by Al Qaeda while shouting Allah Akhbar had to be removed as it would have shown some Muslims in a bad light.
The point is there are bad Muslims....some Muslims do bad acts....some Muslims are Terrorists and commit terroristic acts. You cannot paint them any other way and tell the truth. The fact there are unflattering aspects to Islam when compared to Western values and beliefs is not avoidable as they are real and true.
So just how do you teach your people about all this without including material that would be considered offensive by the very people you are fighting a war against....the radical Islamists who are engaged in carrying out attacks on our Military, Diplomatic, and intelligence forces and our Civilian Population?
Remembering we still teach the use of Nuclear Weapons against those who have Nukes themselves....and I am sure there are courses that suggest the use against major Urban areas containing large numbers of Civilians.
So why do we scrub materials that are possibly offensive to Muslims but still teach Nuclear War?
Short answer....the occupant of the White House as we speak.... a guy who is very pro-Islam....who has undertaken a foreign policy of appeasement and a showing of weakness when confronted by a need to stand firm against Muslim interests that negatively affect our National Security Interests.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Somerset
Age: 68
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS,
You're points seem to be getting more incoherent with each post. I understood the point you were trying to make in your o.p. and the subsequent observations from other readers about diluting your argument were constructive. You had a broadly sympathetic audience.
Your last post however, was a bit 'Mitt Romney', that is, ill-considered.
For example you wrote,
A Muslim could read your last post and declare that your views, and by association this forum, are anti-Islamic. Any subsequent protest that you had been misunderstood will be too late. And if you think your last post was a model of clarity, well, the Second Amendment is a much more succinct statement and has been the subject of debate since 1939.
The problem (for us) lies in Islam not being a centralized religion so there is no equivalent of the Vatican to control dogma. An Imam in Wolverhampton has as much authority as one in Qom and his authority stems from how widely respected he is as a scholar. The influence he wields depends on how he chooses to interpret and present religious teaching and on how bent he is on rabble rousing.
Please be more focused in your argument and if you're going to discuss Muslims specify the individuals or groups and not their religion or we could all end up as Salman Rushdies.
I hope you get some recognition and satisfaction from your letter to General Dempsey and, as ever, good luck to all the men and women who are in harm's way on our behalf.
R
You're points seem to be getting more incoherent with each post. I understood the point you were trying to make in your o.p. and the subsequent observations from other readers about diluting your argument were constructive. You had a broadly sympathetic audience.
Your last post however, was a bit 'Mitt Romney', that is, ill-considered.
For example you wrote,
The fact there are unflattering aspects to Islam when compared to Western values and beliefs is not avoidable as they are real and true.
The problem (for us) lies in Islam not being a centralized religion so there is no equivalent of the Vatican to control dogma. An Imam in Wolverhampton has as much authority as one in Qom and his authority stems from how widely respected he is as a scholar. The influence he wields depends on how he chooses to interpret and present religious teaching and on how bent he is on rabble rousing.
the radical Islamists who are engaged in carrying out attacks on our Military,
I hope you get some recognition and satisfaction from your letter to General Dempsey and, as ever, good luck to all the men and women who are in harm's way on our behalf.
R
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So I took a look at Dooley's course materials - the slides are available online.
For those who can't be bothered to look at them, it starts with the title: "So what can we do?" A counter-Jihad Design Model. In other words, it starts with the assumption that Islam is the problem. Surely "A counter-terrorism design model" would be more appropriate, since despite the fact that many terrorists are muslim, not all of them are. Even if we decide to concentrate on the portion of terrorists who are muslim, the assumption is that it is Islam which is the cause of that particular subset of terrorism rather than anything else - in other words, it does not even attempt to link reasons for terrorism between Islamic and other terrorists. Anyway, he then goes on to make a false dilemma (either democratise or become Islamic despotisms) and conflates resources (comparing Soviet doctrinal documentation with books like the Quran).
To his credit, he does go on to state that the remainder of the course is for discussion purposes: it makes a number of assumptions which he states clearly, and accepts that this particular model may be found to be offensive. And to anyone who doesn't assume that the West, the US, or Christianity are "better" (as he says), it probably is. He does say that using nuclear weapons on civpop may be appropriate; he does suggest destruction of Islamic capital cities and Holy sites; he does qualify that the vast majority of Muslims would be considered the enemy. Should such things be taught to the military? Personally, I don't think so (at least, not in that manner - if it was an example then there are better ones to choose, and if it wasn't...), and neither did the senior management of that particular establishment. Preventing him from continuing to teach is, imo, perfectly reasonable, and I would expect the head of any school where a teacher was teaching non-curriculum material to suspend said teacher. Dooley hasn't been kicked out of the army, simply stopped from teaching when he was found to be doing so in an unauthorised manner. To bring this back to a military aviation perspective (shocking, I know!), if a pilot on a squadron was found to be flying in an unauthorised manner then I'd expect him to be grounded too.
One final point on SASless' last post:
Allow me to fix that (allowing for the grammar etc):
The point is there are bad people....some people do bad acts....some people are Terrorists and commit terroristic acts. You cannot paint them any other way and tell the truth.
For those who can't be bothered to look at them, it starts with the title: "So what can we do?" A counter-Jihad Design Model. In other words, it starts with the assumption that Islam is the problem. Surely "A counter-terrorism design model" would be more appropriate, since despite the fact that many terrorists are muslim, not all of them are. Even if we decide to concentrate on the portion of terrorists who are muslim, the assumption is that it is Islam which is the cause of that particular subset of terrorism rather than anything else - in other words, it does not even attempt to link reasons for terrorism between Islamic and other terrorists. Anyway, he then goes on to make a false dilemma (either democratise or become Islamic despotisms) and conflates resources (comparing Soviet doctrinal documentation with books like the Quran).
To his credit, he does go on to state that the remainder of the course is for discussion purposes: it makes a number of assumptions which he states clearly, and accepts that this particular model may be found to be offensive. And to anyone who doesn't assume that the West, the US, or Christianity are "better" (as he says), it probably is. He does say that using nuclear weapons on civpop may be appropriate; he does suggest destruction of Islamic capital cities and Holy sites; he does qualify that the vast majority of Muslims would be considered the enemy. Should such things be taught to the military? Personally, I don't think so (at least, not in that manner - if it was an example then there are better ones to choose, and if it wasn't...), and neither did the senior management of that particular establishment. Preventing him from continuing to teach is, imo, perfectly reasonable, and I would expect the head of any school where a teacher was teaching non-curriculum material to suspend said teacher. Dooley hasn't been kicked out of the army, simply stopped from teaching when he was found to be doing so in an unauthorised manner. To bring this back to a military aviation perspective (shocking, I know!), if a pilot on a squadron was found to be flying in an unauthorised manner then I'd expect him to be grounded too.
One final point on SASless' last post:
The point is there are bad Muslims....some Muslims do bad acts....some Muslims are Terrorists and commit terroristic acts. You cannot paint them any other way and tell the truth.
The point is there are bad people....some people do bad acts....some people are Terrorists and commit terroristic acts. You cannot paint them any other way and tell the truth.
Thread Starter
PTT....part of grammar is context.
My comment was addressing acts of Terrorism by radical Islamists.
It did not address Irish Catholics, Italian Red Brigades, Tim McVeigh, or ANC members in South Africa.
I guess we could refight the Troubles if you care to....and point out how the British Government acted during those terrible years but that would only goad you to total distraction I am sure.
So...what say we stick to the discussion underway and not try to score some points by twisting the words of others.
Just who attacked our consulates and embassies....and what ethnicity, religion, and political persuasion where they? Your chance to answer very simple direct questions.
If you happen to say, Arab, Islamic, and Radical.....who's being politically incorrect?
My comment was addressing acts of Terrorism by radical Islamists.
It did not address Irish Catholics, Italian Red Brigades, Tim McVeigh, or ANC members in South Africa.
I guess we could refight the Troubles if you care to....and point out how the British Government acted during those terrible years but that would only goad you to total distraction I am sure.
So...what say we stick to the discussion underway and not try to score some points by twisting the words of others.
Just who attacked our consulates and embassies....and what ethnicity, religion, and political persuasion where they? Your chance to answer very simple direct questions.
If you happen to say, Arab, Islamic, and Radical.....who's being politically incorrect?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am amused that you ask me to stay on topic (which is about General Dempsey, is it not?) and then you move onto the subject of terrorism. In the interests of coherence (or what little of it there is left) I shall answer your "simple direct questions" on the other thread, since the question there is basically the same.
Thread Starter
General Dempsey issued the order on this...did that linkage escape you?
Thread Starter
Replacing it with this kind of training sure ought to be!
Your government money at work!
Zombie Apocalypse Training: HALO Corp. To Train Military, Law Enforcement On Virus Outbreak
Your government money at work!
Zombie Apocalypse Training: HALO Corp. To Train Military, Law Enforcement On Virus Outbreak