There's a misleading thread title.

You're so right, somebody is taking the piss ....... and it's not an American hero urinating all over dead Muslim bodies or slaughtering innocent families and torching their bodies.

Fair point. It's still pretty effed up though.

Here's the original more extensive article in Wired, which includes some lovely images of the actual course material. The instructor really does say that use of nuclear weapons on civilian population centers is an acceptable option "wherever necessary" in the context of fighting Islamic extremism.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/total-war-islam/

I wonder if this person is a practising Christian by any chance?

Not by any reasonably accurate definition of the term "Christian", no. He may wrongly call himself that, but IMO those viewpoints are mutually exclusive with anything Christ espoused. There is literally no circumstance under which Christ would have endorsed the idea of nuking Mecca.

Most likely.Many evangelical Christians are chomping at the bit for the end times and Muslims are the new evil. There is an interesting story related by Tom Friedman in book just published before the death of Yitzhak Rabin of how a Jewish terrorist group wanted to plant explosives under the Dome of the Rock to destroy it. This, as many of you know I'm sure, many believe sits on the site of the Temple of Solomon. According to prophecy the rebuilding of the temple is a sign of the end. The head of this terrorist group came to America to raise funds and showed up on none other the the 700 club. The link between evangelical Christians and Israel has only grown stronger since the and one of the strongest proponents of this bizarre coalition is none other than Rick Santorum.

But not all Christians believe in this rank nonsense I should point out.

Let's be fair for a minute.

The Koran calls for the elimination of all non-believers, which includes most of America. Therefore, anyone who has a conservative interpretation of the Koran and Islam is a threat to America, which means that the US military needs to be concerned.

The military needs to be concerned with all threats, both current and possible future threats. The military trains accordingly.

The military is not training these servicemen to be mindless Muslim-slaughtering drones. Anyone who thinks so is an idiot. They are merely preparing servicemen for the possibility that tensions between the Muslim world and the Western world may erupt into war.

And the Bible says that everyone, Christians and non-Christians shall live happily ever after and sing songs and hold hands in a giant circle of friendship.

Does it? Actually during the rise of Islam they were known to be quite accepting of other faiths. It was after the Crusades that a more fundamentalist version crept in and it was by no means universal. The current violent strain arose in a few places, the Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia in the later half of the 18th century though it is only recently in the last 40 to 50 years has it grown to influence other Muslims outside that country. While I certainly think such behavior is vile such generalizations are not useful and, in fact, only create more recruits for these fanatics. Apparently those in charge of the US military agree.

"The military is not training these servicemen to be mindless Muslim-slaughtering drones. Anyone who thinks so is an idiot. They are merely preparing servicemen for the possibility that tensions between the Muslim world and the Western world may erupt into war."

@Gunfighter: I understand what you are saying in an objective sense, but you can't condone the act of dropping nukes on their holy cities or any city. And really, "...there is no such thing as ‘moderate Islam,'" shows that Dooley at least, intended to teach them to be "mindless Muslim-slaughtering drones".

Lets say worst case scenario and a majority of Islamic countries go to war with us. They bomb us. How do you think they would react if we bombed their holy cities. Would they tremble in fear or react with extreme rage. It is more than likely that it would create millions of martyrs in the most extreme way which would then shift millions of Muslims farther to the right. Whether we are at war or not, destroying something that is sacred to a religion cannot be repaired, and may have a worse impact than attacking just the population. There may have been precedents for such mass attacks in the past, but that doesn't make it right. We also live in a world where communication and organization is immensely easier. Their awareness and response would overwhelm us.

It is one thing to consider an action and encourage discussion, but to teach that this is what we should do now, that is wrong; this is exactly what Dooley and those who also taught this intended to do. Whether that is for preparation for current warfare or a future war, it is extremely subjective, which is not how a class should be taught.

Then there is this. Dooley is quoted, “It is therefore time for the United States to make our true intentions clear. This barbaric ideology will no longer be tolerated. Islam must change or we will facilitate its self-destruction.”

Hey, these guys think like Putin - they believe that Al-Qaida is behind the Arab Spring as well

What?

If we are at war with Islam, and several major Muslim countries attacked America in a manner that warranted a nuclear response, then what is wrong about nuking a population center which also has military infrastructure and sites that are considered to be holy by Islam?

It's always nice to see good intelligent debate from a person obviously possessing all of their faculties.
Some people make you laugh the most when they are being deadly serious :-)

@Gunfighter - Neither city has much of a military infrastructure currently. Destroying those cities would not hamper their military capacity. Maybe Dooley was actually talking about bombing other major cities for their military capacity, but specifically mentioning these two cities only has one reasoning, because they are holy cities. Maybe at some point they might have the military infrastructure, and for that reason they might have a good reason, but that's unlikely, and a very specific prediction. The threat of bombing them would work better than actually bombing them.

Contingency plans are constantly updated as situations change, so planning for a specific situation where two cities and many countries are drastically different would have no point. Its an unpredictable situation. Training our generals to think this way while we are at war with Islamic nations that have a limited number of extremists is wrong.

If we were bombed we would gain the support of most of the world in any retaliating war, but using nuclear weapons in response, no matter how large the threat, is largely frowned upon. We would lose that support for that alone. Some of the world believes we were right in attacking Afghanistan (occupying it is a different story), but countries and many Americans are outraged when one soldier kills a few dozen civilians. Can you even imagine the outrage if we bombed these holy cities, and killed millions whether it was militarily justified or not. This would lead to other countries supplying our enemies. Our own people would not support the war, specifically the growing number of American Muslims. Its not strategically sound and its not morally sound. The world has changed in the past 50 years, and people have become much more aware of their ability to prevent these atrocities.

I'm not referring specifically to Mecca and Medina. It seems like any Muslim city with a better-than-average mosque is considered holy these days.

@greysoni - my post wasn't clear. I read into some of the articles and the links and was referring to the "guest lecturers" this guy brought in. I wasn't referring to anybody on this site....besides Putin