Its all about separation of church and state. We could start right here in the USA when it comes to modifying extremist. Born a again Christians here aren?t blowing themselves up yet because things are better here than over seas.

Look at the history record when it comes to mass suicides.

I once read a general said we most adjust to fighting limited wars by minimal means, for specific goals. We don?t need to redo Sun Tzu, it all sounds like spin doctor, chewing the cud to me. IMO the last thing on earth any governments that I know of won?t is a truly educated society. Only sheep herds can be lead by there Shepard?s.

FJV

AHOY,

I could not find the article on Myanmar or Burma so I'm replying to you here. 

I read the info at the link, and copied many notes for my Administration and logistics rumor board.

IMO it was best summed up when they mentioned that this phase of Clausewitz that ?war is a continuation of politics by other means? might be more appropriately phrased as ?war is a continuation of economics by other means.

And to sum up my opinion after reading it I would add this ?and the beat goes on? my point is that all the corruption and evil in the world should not stop aid to the most needy masses. And if you have read my commits on other articles you most likely are not surprised by me saying we could start right here by cleaning up the military industrial complex.

I would also suggest that the interaction of the combatants with aid workers works two ways. It dose provide for the opportunities to gather intel and plant sensors like GPS chips for locations of the combatants etc. And although food, medical and clothing supplies (only the first two are essential) make waging war possible they don?t assure victory.

Thanks for your time.

Ker,

AHOY,

How absolutely stupid of me to make a commit on religion. I respect your opinion and do not wish to spend to much time swapping references here. However I have read about and studied several religions and  have decided on my opinion on this subject. Well make note of your links.

Norman R Morison burning himself alive at the pentagon under the window of the secretary of defense. Morison was a Quaker. Someone got the child from his arms first.

The structure of Heaven's Gate resembled that of a Medieval Monastic order. Leader Marshall Applewhite and Bonnie Nettles. Located in a house on a ranch in Sante Fe near . On . Deaths #39. Jim Jones people?s temple. In Jonestown . Leader Jim Jones. Group drank cyanide laced Kool-Aid 900 plus died. On . Branch Davidians in Waco TX. Leader David Koresh. Burned to death, on , Deaths # 76.  The order of the solar temple. At locations in Switzerland and Quebec. In Oct. 1994, Dec. 1995, and March? 1997. Death total #74. Movement for the restoration for the ten commandments of god, A Ugandan doomsday cult. Sang hymns, doused themselves with gas, and set themselves on fire. On March 18 2000. If I was as knowledgeable as Mr. Christopher Hitchens I could go on and on with names dates an places of wars etc started on the bases of religions. They are all different in many ways, but have done more to harm the world than IMO they well ever make up for.

I in no way think any religion is superior to another but I am curious if anyone can find an example of an Islamic group committing mass suicide.  

I just saw this on jihad watch, thought it pertained and hopefully will be used . In fact i might try to find the book myself.

US Army Colonel: "The enemy we?re facing in the war on terror, al Qaeda, says they are fighting a jihad against the West to establish the faith of Islam"

Lt. Col. Joseph Myers bucks the establishment. "Army Colonel Says U.S. Needs Better Focus in the War on Terror," by Matt Korade for CQ Politics, May 15:

To better understand the Quranic basis of jihad as practiced by extremists without sifting through a library of interpretations, you should read one book above all others, says Lt. Col. Joseph Myers.

?The Quranic Concept of War,? by Pakistani Brig. Gen. S.K. Malik in the late 1970s, isn?t much studied in the West.

But it should be, Myers said, if America, and more specifically, the U.S. military, wants to gain a better understanding of the enemy in the war on terrorism.

Yes, Malik's is a very important book. I discuss it in my 2003 book Onward Muslim Soldiers .

Malik attempts to teach his readers about the doctrinal aspects of ?Quranic warfare,? said Myers, who wrote a paper on the subject published in Parameters, the Army War College quarterly, and delivered a presentation at the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa annual conference in April.

This is the religious definition of war as outlined by Malik with explanations from the Quran, and it is ?infinitely supreme and effective,? the general wrote.

Because the West does not associate war with the divine, however, Western interpretations of the motivations for jihad are unaccustomed to the general?s Quranic view; the ideas, for example, that ?tumult and oppression [of Muslims] are worse than slaughter,? and that because of this, ?war must be waged ?only to fight the forces of tyranny and oppression.? ?...

Myers explains:

The reason I studied this work, once I was able to find it, is because I had heard or had read in an article that nowhere in our military education institutions are we studying the campaigns of the Prophet Mohammed in any similar way that we studied military campaigns that are famous and popular in Western military history. And I know that to be true because I do work in the military professional education system. Generally speaking, I believe that to be true.

So Malik?s treatise is an important contribution to what I think would be called the canon of strategic jihad studies, jihad, the Quranic and Islamic approach to warfare. It?s not widely read in the West, but then you could argue that a lot about Islam and understanding the war-fighting doctrines in Islam are not widely studied in the West, or studied at least professionally.

You asked the question about the divide between, let?s say academia, and a lot of debates over what is the meaning of the threat we?re facing in the war on terror. Who are they? What are their roots? For me professionally, as a military officer, I think our process for doing threat analysis is fairly straightforward. We have our own doctrine for it, it?s called [the] intelligence preparation of the battlefield process. Step three is evaluate the threat. If you go to the army FM [field manual] on the IPB [intelligence preparation of the battlefield] process, it will tell you that the doctrinal assessment of your enemy is based on how your enemy expresses his doctrine to you, based on the way he sees it, says it, writes it, reads it orients on it, and organizes around it. The enemy we?re facing in the war on terror, al Qaeda, says they are fighting a jihad against the West to establish the faith of Islam. Now, if that?s their doctrine, then arguably that is the doctrine that we template, irrespective of whether their interpretation of jihad or their discussion of Islam within the theological community of Muslims is correct or incorrect; that is irrelevant to our discussion and understanding of how the enemy presents his doctrine to us, and it is his doctrine that we template over the terrain....

AHOY

An x MI sgt.

Thanks for agreeing with me on something. It made my day. You must be familiar with the old sane of never give a dollars worth of criticism without a dimes worth of praise. You know I interpret Revelations as God raising hell, I remember all my life hering about Armageddon. And when I read Revelations I was shocked at the lack of information about this grand battle I had herd so much about. But weather any religion is killing non believers or not right now dose not matter. I do believe Like Mark Twain once said. History may not repeat but it sure dose rime.

Semper Fi

Ker, I never said that I agreed with everything Mr Hitchens has said only that he could recall more dates etc than I. I?m sure there lots of flaws in many things we all state from time to time. As for separating those that believe form those that don?t I never suggested that either. I?m saying no theocracies. Not in the USA and I would suggest that any government that truly was one would never be a threat to a science base nation.

PEACE OUT I CALL A TRUCE

Over and out!