"War on Islam" course suspended at JFSC

[PapaJu]

Was there really no approval process for this one beforehand?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18032968

[Steve Davies]

From the article:

What does seem rather surprising, he adds, is that all those commanders, captains and colonels must have sat through the course and not felt the need to tell someone that something rather weird was going on.

Well, what does that tell you?

a) That the course was deliberately provocative and that most attendees saw it for what it was?

b) That they are genuinely concerned about the spread of Islam?

c) Or that they are warmongering bigots who do seriously want to nuke Meca?

d) None of the above

[HU&W]

Academic freedom and non-attribution?

[Herkdrvr]

From the article:

Well, what does that tell you?

a) That the course was deliberately provocative and that most attendees saw it for what it was?

The presentation actually disclaims any affiliation with DOD policy and specifies that it some items (i.e. attacking Mecca) will be uncomfortable. As HU&W noted: academic freedom / non-attribution evaporated in this case.

[Guest]

I read the slides. i didn't see anything to get so fired up about.

[guineapigfury]

Academic freedom and non-attribution?

I heard "not for attribution" once. Even as a 1Lt, I was smart to understand that this meant "for attribution".

I read the slides. i didn't see anything to get so fired up about.

Why is ned kelly wearing an english flag?

[HuggyU2]

Good thing "they" didn't declare "Communism" a religion.

Had they done that, we'd be falling over ourselves to give rights to the communists.

[Nineline]

From the article:

Well, what does that tell you?

a) That the course was deliberately provocative and that most attendees saw it for what it was?

b) That they are genuinely concerned about the spread of Islam?

c) Or that they are warmongering bigots who do seriously want to nuke Meca?

d) None of the above

Answer: e) Both a and b

Even though I havent taken the course in question personally, I am one of the most recent grads from JFSC and have a good friend from my seminar who has taken this. General consensus among students and faculty is that all the hype is uncalled for and detrimental. All students I know have nothing but praise for the instructor and his insight into radical Islam. It really is a shame that all the meaningful and mutually beneficial discussions that took place will not take place any longer due to the failure of non-attribution. For me, the open and frank discussions without the worry of sticking to "party lines" is what made the whole JFSC experience worthwhile.

-9-

[HuggyU2]

... of nuking Mecca and starving civilian populations on the basis of their religion?

The problem isn't their religion.

The problem is those that use that religion to pursue an ideology that is violent toward "Western culture".

[tac airlifter]

That's a good point...could we share some of that academic benefit with the rest of the class? For example, could you cover some of the benefits they gained from an open and frank discussion of nuking Mecca and starving civilian populations on the basis of their religion?

We should be free to discuss anything within the confine of an academic setting, using logic and reason to decide the merits of various COAs. Even disproving an absurd idea using reason without emotion is a valuable exercise. It teaches people to consider what they hear, challenge their own assumptions, and ultimately strengthens our resolve. Political correctness is the anathema of learning. If you really want to teach problem solving and outside the box thinking, you must first teach people to be comfortable hearing any possible suggestion, no matter how absurd. Hopefully that explains to you the benefits gained from an open and frank discussion about any subject.

[Guest]

That's a good point...could we share some of that academic benefit with the rest of the class? For example, could you cover some of the benefits they gained from an open and frank discussion of nuking Mecca and starving civilian populations on the basis of their religion?

I genuinely am curious about whether the course actually approached it from the perspective of how stupid and counter-productive these kinds of strategies would be- on the basis of the slides it's kind of hard to make that leap, and without the discussion from the position of negative impact it's pretty hard to see the value.

Ugh.

Clamp your mind down. Harder. You can do it. Seriously, close it off.

[FuturePilot]

The problem isn't their religion.

The problem is those that use that religion to pursue an ideology that is violent toward "Western culture".

This ^^

[busdriver]

The problem isn't their religion.

Agreed.

Most Muslims aren't middle eastern. Is the root problem religion or culture?

[daynightindicator]

Agreed.

Most Muslims aren't middle eastern. Is the root problem religion or culture?

Culture, but since every culture itself has so many different factors that contribute to its nature, I would say that economic disenfranchisement and lack of education (which of course play into each other as well) would be the most blatant contributors to the violent extremism. Religion simply becomes the vehicle by which to justify and perpetuate the violence.

As we all know there are completely wacko religious zealots right here in the USA. My personal opinion as to why they aren't violent is not their religion, but the fact that it's hard to be angry enough to blow up your own cranium when you have two cars and a big screen LED TV. When your station in life doesn't suck dog balls, it's hard to justify the anger and desperation that drives the violent extremism.

Just my .02

[MilitaryToFinance]

The problem isn't their religion.

The problem is those that use that religion.

FTFY

As we all know there are completely wacko religious zealots right here in the USA. My personal opinion as to why they aren't violent is not their religion, but the fact that it's hard to be angry enough to blow up your own cranium when you have two cars and a big screen LED TV. When your station in life doesn't suck dog balls, it's hard to justify the anger and desperation that drives the violent extremism.

You sure about that?

http://www.history.c...ortion-activist

http://www.washingto...ies/florida.htm

http://www.washingto...salvi021996.htm

http://www.prochoice...james_kopp.html

And that's just a sampling of the successful murders, not all the attempted murders or the arson and bombings of buildings. Nor does it include the nutjob women who drowned their children because it was god's will.

Edited May 17, 2012 by mappleby

[bfargin]

mappleby, so really what you're saying is "it's not religion, it's the nutjobs".

[PapaJu]

I would say that economic disenfranchisement and lack of education (which of course play into each other as well) would be the most blatant contributors to the violent extremism.

While this may seem intuitive it's not true. The membership of Islamic extremist groups can be pretty diverse from a socioeconomic standpoint. Pretty enlightening book on this subject: http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Win-Strategic-Suicide-Terrorism/dp/0812973380/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1337290116&sr=8-1

Edited May 17, 2012 by PapaJu

[Guest]

And that's just a sampling of the successful murders, not all the attempted murders or the arson and bombings of buildings. Nor does it include the nutjob women who drowned their children because it was god's will.

Settle down Francis.

You should feel ashamed for making this direct comparison. Clearly you have not seen the world.

[MilitaryToFinance]

Settle down Francis.

You should feel ashamed for making this direct comparison. Clearly you have not seen the world.

I've seen more of the world than most.

So killing in the name of Christianity is not comparable to killing in the name of Islam? Why not? My point is that Islam doesn't have the market cornered on crazy, violent nutjobs.

[Champ Kind]

I've seen more of the world than most.

So killing in the name of Christianity is not comparable to killing in the name of Islam? Why not? My point is that Islam doesn't have the market cornered on crazy, violent nutjobs.

Aren't you a shoe?

Shhhh.

[BQZip01]

I've seen more of the world than most.

Not on this board

So killing in the name of Christianity is not comparable to killing in the name of Islam? Why not? My point is that Islam doesn't have the market cornered on crazy, violent nutjobs.

Dismissed as a red herring/straw man argument: No one said nutjob radical Islamists are the sole threat out there. (though it sure is easy to prove something false when you make up something absurd, isn't it?)

[MilitaryToFinance]

I was responding to this specific quote.

As we all know there are completely wacko religious zealots right here in the USA. My personal opinion as to why they aren't violent is not their religion

The statement made is that religious zealots in the US are not violent. Yet we have seen a number of cases of murders, bombings and vandalism by religious zealots in the name of their religion here in this country. So I was providing evidence to directly refute a statement that was made. While it is so much more fun to attack the person than the issue I prefer more rational methods of debating.

[GrndPndr]

I was responding to this specific quote.

The statement made is that religious zealots in the US are not violent. Yet we have seen a number of cases of murders, bombings and vandalism by religious zealots in the name of their religion here in this country. So I was providing evidence to directly refute a statement that was made. While it is so much more fun to attack the person than the issue I prefer more rational methods of debating.

If one lays aside the argument concerning Islam's aims on the West, there is a scale issue between Islam and "other" religious when it comes to violence and getting one's point across.

This site, http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/...clearly has a spin on things, but tallies the daily violence succinctly. It posts every two or three days worth of incidents. Today's snapshot - six attacks in three days. If I check the site three days hence, there will be more incidents summarized (usually two or three each day).

Without using the "Wayback Machine," please indicate where on Earth we can go to make ANY comparison - at all to the scale of violence demonstrated.

FM

[busdriver]

If religion were the defining factor shouldn't Jemaah Islamiyah be the most prolific terrorist organisation?

[Muscle2002]

FTFY

You sure about that?

http://www.history.c...ortion-activist

http://www.washingto...ies/florida.htm

http://www.washingto...salvi021996.htm

http://www.prochoice...james_kopp.html

And that's just a sampling of the successful murders, not all the attempted murders or the arson and bombings of buildings. Nor does it include the nutjob women who drowned their children because it was god's will.

Not trying to turn this into a religious vs. irreligious thread, but the atrocities committed as a natural outworking of nihilism and "blood and soil" thinking outnumber the losses in the examples you gave.

On both sides, warped versions of ideologies led to loss of life.