If this would stop the war in Iraq, and the terrorists...

[reverend_kyle]

I would be so for it even if it is dickholish





something to make you think.

[autoload]

He has a stache.

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

I would be so for it even if it is dickholish





something to make you think.

Not only does this point that this story is not verifiable as true or even accurate, it also gives a wonderful counter to the post.

If I may quote it:

The
desire for simplistic solutions to complex problems has spawned several widely-circulated messages of late which seek to transform a fight against terrorism to the easily-manageable level of a horror film or a comic strip. Today's popular notion is the concept that a pig is to a Muslim as a crucifix is to a vampire — simply arm yourself with a porker, and you can use it to render even the most fanatical terrorist helpless, sending him cowering in fear lest he come into contact with anything porcine.

Such notions reduce an extremely widespread and diverse religion — and the people who follow it — to a monolithic entity with a single set of beliefs and rules to which everyone adheres. Islam has a variety of sects and sub-sects just as Christianity has a multiplicity of denominations; assuming that all "Muslims" believe and behave identically is like assuming that all Catholics and Baptists believe and behave identically because both of the latter groups are "Christians." In one sense, messages such as the ones quoted above could be considered as silly as Muslims' proclaiming that a good way to throw the USA into disarray would be to "bomb" America with juicy steaks on Fridays, because "Americans are Christians," and "everyone knows Christians who eat meat on Fridays go to Hell." Never mind that not all Americans are Christians, that not all Christians are Catholics, that not all Catholics believe in exactly the same things, that not all Catholics are equally religious or faithful, and that even the "rules" of Catholicism have changed over time.

Also implicit in this type of reasoning is the notion that "terrorist," "Muslim terrorist," "fanatical Muslim" and "devout Muslim" are all synonymous. They aren't — just as not all Muslims are terrorists, Black Jack not all terrorists are Muslims; one need not be devout to be fanatical, and not all religious fanatics are devout. Religion can be just as much about politics and power as it is about faith, and counter-religious behavior is often justified or sanctioned in the service of a "greater cause." The terrorists who hijacked American Airlines Flight 11 were reportedly seen partaking of alcohol and engaging the services of naked lap dancers, activities which should have been anathema to true Muslims. Perhaps they were Muslims in name only, maybe they weren't all that devout, or possibly they rationalized that Allah would overlook their transgressions with booze and women since they were about to die in the service of Islam. Whatever the case, concerns about the afterlife probably wouldn't have dissuaded the hijackers from their plans to crash Flight 11 into the World Trade Center had a few pigs turned up on board the plane. If Allah was a concern, well, the hijackers could choose to believe that Allah would understand and make allowances for true warriors of the faith — after all, the Koran teaches against suicide in the first place.

[autoload]

He has a stache.

[mandalorian2298]

Beats bombing residential buildings. As long as their guilt in the terrorist attacks is proven, I like it.

The only problem that I see with the plan is that religius leaders are the ones who start/end/interpret these kind of belifs. Some old saint would just come out of his cave and say: "It is ok to touch pork, as long as you have killed at least 1 infidell pig."

Nice try, though

[DIRESTRAITS]

I would be so for it even if it is dickholish





something to make you think.

Thats what we need to do. We need to stop being so pussy and worried about the terrorists feelings.

[Stopper]

Thats what we need to do. We need to stop being so pussy and worried about the terrorists feelings.

Eh? I can't remember the US Army, police, government, or any other department, being accused of "worrying about the terrorists' feelings" - or indeed, even innocent people's feelings, for that matter.

Anyway, Jesse answered the original post earlier on in this thread.

[Mirak]

Jesse said it all.

The Baker report also made sense. But Mr Bush seems to have his own agenda.

[reverend_kyle]

I would be so for it even if it is dickholish





something to make you think.

Not only does this point that this story is not verifiable as true or even accurate, it also gives a wonderful counter to the post.

If I may quote it:

The
desire for simplistic solutions to complex problems has spawned several widely-circulated messages of late which seek to transform a fight against terrorism to the easily-manageable level of a horror film or a comic strip. Today's popular notion is the concept that a pig is to a Muslim as a crucifix is to a vampire — simply arm yourself with a porker, and you can use it to render even the most fanatical terrorist helpless, sending him cowering in fear lest he come into contact with anything porcine.

Such notions reduce an extremely widespread and diverse religion — and the people who follow it — to a monolithic entity with a single set of beliefs and rules to which everyone adheres. Islam has a variety of sects and sub-sects just as Christianity has a multiplicity of denominations; assuming that all "Muslims" believe and behave identically is like assuming that all Catholics and Baptists believe and behave identically because both of the latter groups are "Christians." In one sense, messages such as the ones quoted above could be considered as silly as Muslims' proclaiming that a good way to throw the USA into disarray would be to "bomb" America with juicy steaks on Fridays, because "Americans are Christians," and "everyone knows Christians who eat meat on Fridays go to Hell." Never mind that not all Americans are Christians, that not all Christians are Catholics, that not all Catholics believe in exactly the same things, that not all Catholics are equally religious or faithful, and that even the "rules" of Catholicism have changed over time.

Also implicit in this type of reasoning is the notion that "terrorist," "Muslim terrorist," "fanatical Muslim" and "devout Muslim" are all synonymous. They aren't — just as not all Muslims are terrorists, Black Jack not all terrorists are Muslims; one need not be devout to be fanatical, and not all religious fanatics are devout. Religion can be just as much about politics and power as it is about faith, and counter-religious behavior is often justified or sanctioned in the service of a "greater cause." The terrorists who hijacked American Airlines Flight 11 were reportedly seen partaking of alcohol and engaging the services of naked lap dancers, activities which should have been anathema to true Muslims. Perhaps they were Muslims in name only, maybe they weren't all that devout, or possibly they rationalized that Allah would overlook their transgressions with booze and women since they were about to die in the service of Islam. Whatever the case, concerns about the afterlife probably wouldn't have dissuaded the hijackers from their plans to crash Flight 11 into the World Trade Center had a few pigs turned up on board the plane. If Allah was a concern, well, the hijackers could choose to believe that Allah would understand and make allowances for true warriors of the faith — after all, the Koran teaches against suicide in the first place.

HEY YOU! DON'T BRING LOGIC INTO THIS

[Grimson]

This is fucking retarded.

Just something to make you think.

[autoload]

He has a stache.

[millej11]

And you're gay [edit] with supercram

[supercram]

And you're gay

i bet it took you all day to come up with this well-crafted and rapier-witted flame.

[reverend_kyle]

And he has a stache.