Pentagon Senior Officer Proposes Using Atomic Bombs on the Muslim World

Veteran officers within the military found themselves forced to condemn a presentation delivered to the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Virginia, where the unthinkable—using nuclear weapons against holy sites like Mecca and Medina—was actually put on the table. It was presented as a historical parallel to the devastation seen in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, and Dresden.

“We have come to realize that there is no such thing as modern Islam,” Matthew A. Dooley stated back in June 2011, essentially drafting a manifesto for American anti-Islamic defense. “The United States has to be crystal clear here: this aggressive ideology can no longer be tolerated. Islam must change, or it faces self-destruction.” This was the assertion made by Lieutenant Colonel Matthew A. Dooley during a seminar for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Norfolk, Virginia. He laid out a four-phase blueprint designed to fundamentally transform Islam, one method being the initiation of counterterrorism operations directed at civilian populations—a strategy Dooley, who remains stationed in Norfolk conducting courses for officers preparing for deployment to Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Muslim nations, explicitly advocated.

Following the fallout, the Defense Intelligence Agency was ordered to investigate the matter this past April, as the content flew in the face of the "values we stand for," according to General Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Dempsey was alerted to the situation by one of the course participants, a counterintelligence officer currently serving in Iraq. Upon hearing the details, Dempsey immediately issued orders to all staff branches, commands, and training centers to halt these types of lectures and any similar presentations regarding a total war against the Muslim world. General Flynn, acting as an assistant to Dempsey on these matters, officially suspended the courses in Norfolk this month.
Of course, none of this diminishes the official news breaking these days; the United States is ramping up its military involvement in Yemen and Pakistan significantly.
J. Brennan, a senior advisor to the White House Counterterrorism Center, announced this shift during a speech in Washington, D.C. Now, the Pentagon finds itself in the unenviable position of having to justify its actions to a watchful public.

Up until now, the "policy" for the high establishment—both the Pentagon and the White House—regarding military operations in Muslim countries has been to maintain a tight lid on things. The standard advice has always been: “...We are not in a position to comment on specific classified operations or specific areas of the world where we are engaged...” That is simply the directive handed down from PR handlers. The conclusion regarding our involvement in "unspecified military operations" stems from a statement by Brennan, who remarked, “...The United States government utilizes drones wherever they are required...”

hm.. if that happens, we're going to see a massive influx of Muslims into the US.. and honestly, that wouldn't be a good thing for anyone here.🤷

It’s a bit of a recurring theme. I remember back during the height of the Iraq Crisis, a news crew in New York City decided to poll people on the street about how they would resolve the conflict. Most of them didn't even blink before suggesting we just drop an atomic bomb on them.

Timothy Evans2 said:Veteran officers within the military found themselves forced to condemn a presentation delivered to the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Virginia, where the unthinkable—using nuclear weapons against holy sites like Mecca and Medina—was actually put on the table. It was presented as a historical parallel to the devastation seen in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, and Dresden.

“We have come to realize that there is no such thing as modern Islam,” Matthew A. Dooley stated back in June 2011, essentially drafting a manifesto for American anti-Islamic defense. “The United States has to be crystal clear here: this aggressive ideology can no longer be tolerated. Islam must change, or it faces self-destruction.” This was the assertion made by Lieutenant Colonel Matthew A. Dooley during a seminar for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Norfolk, Virginia. He laid out a four-phase blueprint designed to fundamentally transform Islam, one method being the initiation of counterterrorism operations directed at civilian populations—a strategy Dooley, who remains stationed in Norfolk conducting courses for officers preparing for deployment to Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Muslim nations, explicitly advocated.

Following the fallout, the Defense Intelligence Agency was ordered to investigate the matter this past April, as the content flew in the face of the "values we stand for," according to General Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Dempsey was alerted to the situation by one of the course participants, a counterintelligence officer currently serving in Iraq. Upon hearing the details, Dempsey immediately issued orders to all staff branches, commands, and training centers to halt these types of lectures and any similar presentations regarding a total war against the Muslim world. General Flynn, acting as an assistant to Dempsey on these matters, officially suspended the courses in Norfolk this month.
Of course, none of this diminishes the official news breaking these days; the United States is ramping up its military involvement in Yemen and Pakistan significantly.
J. Brennan, a senior advisor to the White House Counterterrorism Center, announced this shift during a speech in Washington, D.C. Now, the Pentagon finds itself in the unenviable position of having to justify its actions to a watchful public.

Up until now, the "policy" for the high establishment—both the Pentagon and the White House—regarding military operations in Muslim countries has been to maintain a tight lid on things. The standard advice has always been: “...We are not in a position to comment on specific classified operations or specific areas of the world where we are engaged...” That is simply the directive handed down from PR handlers. The conclusion regarding our involvement in "unspecified military operations" stems from a statement by Brennan, who remarked, “...The United States government utilizes drones wherever they are required...”

I mean, if I only knew what kind of mess birthed such an aggressive ideology in the first place. Hmm... those Americans😕😕😕

Timothy Evans2 said:Veteran officers within the military found themselves forced to condemn a presentation delivered to the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Virginia, where the unthinkable—using nuclear weapons against holy sites like Mecca and Medina—was actually put on the table. It was presented as a historical parallel to the devastation seen in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, and Dresden.

“We have come to realize that there is no such thing as modern Islam,” Matthew A. Dooley stated back in June 2011, essentially drafting a manifesto for American anti-Islamic defense. “The United States has to be crystal clear here: this aggressive ideology can no longer be tolerated. Islam must change, or it faces self-destruction.” This was the assertion made by Lieutenant Colonel Matthew A. Dooley during a seminar for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Norfolk, Virginia. He laid out a four-phase blueprint designed to fundamentally transform Islam, one method being the initiation of counterterrorism operations directed at civilian populations—a strategy Dooley, who remains stationed in Norfolk conducting courses for officers preparing for deployment to Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Muslim nations, explicitly advocated.

Following the fallout, the Defense Intelligence Agency was ordered to investigate the matter this past April, as the content flew in the face of the "values we stand for," according to General Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Dempsey was alerted to the situation by one of the course participants, a counterintelligence officer currently serving in Iraq. Upon hearing the details, Dempsey immediately issued orders to all staff branches, commands, and training centers to halt these types of lectures and any similar presentations regarding a total war against the Muslim world. General Flynn, acting as an assistant to Dempsey on these matters, officially suspended the courses in Norfolk this month.
Of course, none of this diminishes the official news breaking these days; the United States is ramping up its military involvement in Yemen and Pakistan significantly.
J. Brennan, a senior advisor to the White House Counterterrorism Center, announced this shift during a speech in Washington, D.C. Now, the Pentagon finds itself in the unenviable position of having to justify its actions to a watchful public.

Up until now, the "policy" for the high establishment—both the Pentagon and the White House—regarding military operations in Muslim countries has been to maintain a tight lid on things. The standard advice has always been: “...We are not in a position to comment on specific classified operations or specific areas of the world where we are engaged...” That is simply the directive handed down from PR handlers. The conclusion regarding our involvement in "unspecified military operations" stems from a statement by Brennan, who remarked, “...The United States government utilizes drones wherever they are required...”

Give me a break... And the third holiest site for Muslims is nothing else but Jerusalem. Are they planning to drop an atomic bomb there too? 😛

Peter Reyes63 said:hm.. if that happens, we're going to see a massive influx of Muslims into the US.. and honestly, that wouldn't be a good thing for anyone here.🤷

It feels like an inevitable outcome, really, because the USA is such a heavy energy addict that it's practically forced to seize control of those oil and gas-rich regions in the Middle East... and once the survivors and the displaced people flee those areas, they'll head straight into Europe and the rest of the world...
In one move, the USA effectively "kills two birds with one stone":
1. it secures the energy resources it desperately needs
2. it cripples Europe's ability to compete in that ongoing global race for economic dominance by forcing them to deal with a massive migration crisis...

Nancy Smith15 said:It feels like an inevitable outcome, really, because the USA is such a heavy energy addict that it's practically forced to seize control of those oil and gas-rich regions in the Middle East... and once the survivors and the displaced people flee those areas, they'll head straight into Europe and the rest of the world...
In one move, the USA effectively "kills two birds with one stone":
1. it secures the energy resources it desperately needs
2. it cripples Europe's ability to compete in that ongoing global race for economic dominance by forcing them to deal with a massive migration crisis...

Imagine if the US first talked Europe into building a twelve-meter wall along the Turkish border, just so when the mass migration starts, people hit that barrier, bounce off, pass through radioactive zones, and ricochet all the way into China, physically contaminating everything in their path.

At the end of the day, Europe isn't some threat to Americans; it's just a useful ally to hold the line against the rising economies in Southeast Asia.

Honestly, this whole topic is so absurdly heavy on politics that it doesn't even belong in a subforum.

Maybe move it to Alternative?

silvercrane38 said:It’s a bit of a recurring theme. I remember back during the height of the Iraq Crisis, a news crew in New York City decided to poll people on the street about how they would resolve the conflict. Most of them didn't even blink before suggesting we just drop an atomic bomb on them.

And you think Moscow would just coddle the Chechens? ☕

The average person is entitled to their stupidity. This guy needs to be sanctioned.

Look, there’s really no point in me trying to justify myself to you. Once you finally realize that the policy being driven by the USA is inherently fascist, genocidal, and occupation-based—and more importantly, that people support it simply out of sheer terror—then maybe we can talk...
Fascism doesn't have to be limited to that specific early 20th-century ideology wielded by certain dictators...

Drew Sanchez said:Look, there’s really no point in me trying to justify myself to you. Once you finally realize that the policy being driven by the USA is inherently fascist, genocidal, and occupation-based—and more importantly, that people support it simply out of sheer terror—then maybe we can talk...
Fascism doesn't have to be limited to that specific early 20th-century ideology wielded by certain dictators...

Fine then, buddy, why don't you drop a definition for us?

Timothy Evans2 said:Veteran officers within the military found themselves forced to condemn a presentation delivered to the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Virginia, where the unthinkable—using nuclear weapons against holy sites like Mecca and Medina—was actually put on the table. It was presented as a historical parallel to the devastation seen in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, and Dresden.

“We have come to realize that there is no such thing as modern Islam,” Matthew A. Dooley stated back in June 2011, essentially drafting a manifesto for American anti-Islamic defense. “The United States has to be crystal clear here: this aggressive ideology can no longer be tolerated. Islam must change, or it faces self-destruction.” This was the assertion made by Lieutenant Colonel Matthew A. Dooley during a seminar for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Norfolk, Virginia. He laid out a four-phase blueprint designed to fundamentally transform Islam, one method being the initiation of counterterrorism operations directed at civilian populations—a strategy Dooley, who remains stationed in Norfolk conducting courses for officers preparing for deployment to Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Muslim nations, explicitly advocated.

Following the fallout, the Defense Intelligence Agency was ordered to investigate the matter this past April, as the content flew in the face of the "values we stand for," according to General Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Dempsey was alerted to the situation by one of the course participants, a counterintelligence officer currently serving in Iraq. Upon hearing the details, Dempsey immediately issued orders to all staff branches, commands, and training centers to halt these types of lectures and any similar presentations regarding a total war against the Muslim world. General Flynn, acting as an assistant to Dempsey on these matters, officially suspended the courses in Norfolk this month.
Of course, none of this diminishes the official news breaking these days; the United States is ramping up its military involvement in Yemen and Pakistan significantly.
J. Brennan, a senior advisor to the White House Counterterrorism Center, announced this shift during a speech in Washington, D.C. Now, the Pentagon finds itself in the unenviable position of having to justify its actions to a watchful public.

Up until now, the "policy" for the high establishment—both the Pentagon and the White House—regarding military operations in Muslim countries has been to maintain a tight lid on things. The standard advice has always been: “...We are not in a position to comment on specific classified operations or specific areas of the world where we are engaged...” That is simply the directive handed down from PR handlers. The conclusion regarding our involvement in "unspecified military operations" stems from a statement by Brennan, who remarked, “...The United States government utilizes drones wherever they are required...”

a) they realized modern Islam doesn't exist
b) Islam has to change or die

How long has Islam been around? 1,600 years.
How long has American "wisdom" been going on? Since 1899.
This is going to be a long, exhausting grind with no end in sight. Americans are already neck-deep in it—Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen... places where we've got boots on the ground. Now they're looking at attacking Iran and Sudan.
Why don't they just go full colonialist and use the same old war tactics the British used? Or is that too modest for them? They want instant results because someone set a deadline. Looks like we've hit the era of unchecked stupidity in an expanded version of the Monroe Doctrine.

Drew Sanchez said:Look, there’s really no point in me trying to justify myself to you. Once you finally realize that the policy being driven by the USA is inherently fascist, genocidal, and occupation-based—and more importantly, that people support it simply out of sheer terror—then maybe we can talk...
Fascism doesn't have to be limited to that specific early 20th-century ideology wielded by certain dictators...

Yes, it does.

Find some other word for American politics. Fascism is fascism.

This is actually quite insightful
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_%28epithet%29

Steven Allen9 said:a) they realized modern Islam doesn't exist
b) Islam has to change or die

How long has Islam been around? 1,600 years.
How long has American "wisdom" been going on? Since 1899.
This is going to be a long, exhausting grind with no end in sight. Americans are already neck-deep in it—Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen... places where we've got boots on the ground. Now they're looking at attacking Iran and Sudan.
Why don't they just go full colonialist and use the same old war tactics the British used? Or is that too modest for them? They want instant results because someone set a deadline. Looks like we've hit the era of unchecked stupidity in an expanded version of the Monroe Doctrine.

Look, I'm not defending Americans here. This is a nation that carries Masonic symbols right on its dollar bills, had a first president who was a Mason, and has a capital city practically plastered with Masonic imagery. But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that for all its 1,600-year history, Islam has remained fundamentally one thing: a religion of inheritance and a religion of force. From its founder Muhammad down to the present day, that hasn't changed, no matter how much we avoid talking about it.

So, we're fighting enemies on both sides, much like those leftist anarchist groups and the like. Our only real shot lies in patriotism, the Church, and the family unit.

Frank Moore4 said:Look, I'm not defending Americans here. This is a nation that carries Masonic symbols right on its dollar bills, had a first president who was a Mason, and has a capital city practically plastered with Masonic imagery. But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that for all its 1,600-year history, Islam has remained fundamentally one thing: a religion of inheritance and a religion of force. From its founder Muhammad down to the present day, that hasn't changed, no matter how much we avoid talking about it.

So, we're fighting enemies on both sides, much like those leftist anarchist groups and the like. Our only real shot lies in patriotism, the Church, and the family unit.

Masons aren't aliens. They're just a club for global entrepreneurs. Honestly, I don't see much difference between what they do and what conventional churches do. Islam started among the poorest people in a cramped environment, and it stayed that way even after those people got rich. It hasn't evolved; it’s stayed static, which means it’ll eventually eat itself alive. With or without Americans and the Masons, Islam is going to have to find some logical, modern answers for today and tomorrow. Right now, the minority is still riding a donkey while everyone else can afford a car with AC.

Frank Moore4 said:Look, I'm not defending Americans here. This is a nation that carries Masonic symbols right on its dollar bills, had a first president who was a Mason, and has a capital city practically plastered with Masonic imagery. But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that for all its 1,600-year history, Islam has remained fundamentally one thing: a religion of inheritance and a religion of force. From its founder Muhammad down to the present day, that hasn't changed, no matter how much we avoid talking about it.

So, we're fighting enemies on both sides, much like those leftist anarchist groups and the like. Our only real shot lies in patriotism, the Church, and the family unit.

Interesting; patriotism, church, family.
Sounds nice on paper, sure, but why would anyone opposing that be an anarchist or a leftist?
Patriotism is basically just whether or not you throw your trash on the ground.
The Church is a financial institution that’s been far too soft on pedophiles—one of the worst crimes against humanity. They should deal with that before preaching about how being poor is actually a beautiful thing.
As for family, it only works if there’s actual love involved. If parents have nothing left to give each other, a divorce might be better for a kid than staying in a marriage built on lies, misery, and constant fighting.
As long as there's love, the structure doesn't matter. It's the substance that counts.

Brilliant idea. Dropping an atomic bomb on Mecca and Medina would basically wipe out Islam overnight. 🙄

Honestly, you’d be doing those radical Islamists a massive favor by pulling a move like that.

And considering who the USA actually backs in Syria, Egypt, or Libya, I guess it wouldn't be a stretch to think this kind of logic isn't entirely crazy or naive.

Jerry Roberts said:Brilliant idea. Dropping an atomic bomb on Mecca and Medina would basically wipe out Islam overnight. 🙄

Honestly, you’d be doing those radical Islamists a massive favor by pulling a move like that.

And considering who the USA actually backs in Syria, Egypt, or Libya, I guess it wouldn't be a stretch to think this kind of logic isn't entirely crazy or naive.

Precisely. It wasn't by accident that Breivik targeted a leftist youth camp instead of a mosque.