Demand Koran Replace U.S. Constitution

Steve I do feel like answering "well duh" since this is exactly what I have been saying. For centuries Muslims held suicide to be wrong, some Muslims now teach that suicide in some circumstances is not only OK but also a sure fire way to get to heaven. Given that re-definition or re-interpretation there is no reason to believe that the prohibition about pork, which is already subject to exceptions would be any deterrent to any Muslim terrorist.

Except for one minor detail: is comitting suicide to obtain real estate doing it for allah? Also check the conclusion at the end of the discussion of these verses....
er, God still is the only one with the right to take a life since he, er, made it.


Which is why I am saying these fellows need a reality check and if pork powder can help provide it then that would be the logical alternative.
 
No. Read the report. What it does is indicate to those who feel a pork based weapon will have no value does in fact carry a great deal of effect.

Yeah, read the report, Steve. Were these people Hezbollah? No, they were just ordinary Muslims, who were horrified that anyone could even think of using such a weapon.

You just shot down your own argument by posting that link, Steve. Not smart.

Why is forcefeeding Christians for information not torture?

Why shouldn't the religious fanatics welcome that you kill them, if they think that it will not only earn them martyrdom, but also doom you to eternal hell?

I do not know how a weapon like this can be tested except by using it on a small subset of enemy combatant/terrorists in an actual scenario and see what happens. If the Israeli's placed the lard on the buses and the suicide bombers stopped attacking them then that's a test. This would need to be an observational study without the use of controls.

That is so idiotic that the mind reels. Who will use the buses at all?

Well this is supposition. What is the evidence that pork doesn't have a profound effect on the behavior of a muslim fanatic?

You just provided the evidence that pork has a profound effect on the behavior of Muslims in general. Not just Muslim fanatics.

We both know that we'd rather be doused with pork powder than blown up or shot through the head. If there was a choice it seems fanatical muslims would prefer the latter. I say let's treat them to the former.

And you would also douse the non-fanatical Muslims with pork. Which you don't see as a problem.

I don't think you can compare sucicide for allah which means to them dying and getting this reward and the prospect of.. being alive and somehow besmirched by piggy powder while in battle while running the risk of dying in this unclean state. Hence deterrence. I'd rather the world had a pork based deterrent factor than a nuclear one. I think we should tell the Iranian leader we will cover him with pork powder if he persists with his nuclear ambitions. What we can use against the Korean atheist is another matter. Atheists don't have religious superstitions so are a far more formidable threat.

I'm sure you would rather the world had a pork-based deterrent factor, because you are not a Muslim, and you certainly are willing to trample on non-violent Muslims, too.

Steve, think about what it is you are proposing. It is not just the height of idiocy, it will just make things worse. Behaving like a barbarian will only play into the hands of radical violent Muslims.
 
Interesting post on the matter from URL below which deals with some of our own banter:
Actually Jewish and Moslem prohibitions regarding swine differ. Moslems aren't permitted to touch pigs, live or dead, or any part of pigs, such a pig leather or pig bristles. Jews are not permitted to eat pigs, and that is all; Jews may wear pig leather and presumably keep pigs as pets (I'd name mine Yasser) and use pig bristle brushes (but I suspect the brushes would be for paint or shoeshines, not toothbrushes) and there is rabbinic approval of using pig heart valves for transplants to humans.
If it were up to me, I'd have every doorknob in Israel upholstered in pig leather as a subtle hint.

During the British Mandate the British (as the Americans had done in the Philippines a half century earlier) tried to discourage Moslem guerrilla action by stopping the Moslem funerals and putting a dead pig or a pig's hide into the coffin with the body. It appears that had little effect, the Moslems at least felt that once a Moslem is dead his soul won't be punished for whatever his corpse comes in contact with. About ten years an Israeli chemist (who was also a rabbi) came up with a variation of the dumdum bullet, with a drop or two of pig's blood in the point, and suggested these bullets be used with lots of publicity against Arabs. On the other hand, the Palestinians ridiculed the idea, saying their enemies cannot influence their admission to paradise.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1076654/posts
 
Last edited:
And here is the answer to your request for additional news sources on the use of pig lard to thwart suicide bombers in Israel:

"Use"? I don't see any news sources describing the use of pig lard to thwart suicide bombers in Israel.

Yes, I suppose the Rabbinate of Jersalem are all a bunch of idiots. Ditto for the Ministers in favor of this and don't forget the Israeli police.

I edited my post above by adding a newsclip of this proposal.

Does Rabbi Eliezer Fisher speak for the Jerusalem Rabbinical Court, or was he speaking for himself?

What Ministers are in favor of this? Names, sources.

What is the official stance of the Israeli police on this? Yes, a direct quote from an official source.

You need to answer these questions, Steve. Might as well do it right away.
 
"Use"? I don't see any news sources describing the use of pig lard to thwart suicide bombers in Israel.

I guess the BBC and Agence France-Presse don't qualify for you then.


Does Rabbi Eliezer Fisher speak for the Jerusalem Rabbinical Court, or was he speaking for himself?

Why don't you ask him next time you seehim?

What Ministers are in favor of this? Names, sources.

It's in the news accounts. See BBC account for:

"Israeli Deputy Defence Minister Yaacov Edri said he supported the proposal. "

What is the official stance of the Israeli police on this? Yes, a direct quote from an official source.

Why don't you ask them the next time you run into the Chief of the Israeli Police?

Also: See the news accounts. There are a lot more. I gave a few.

You need to answer these questions, Steve. Might as well do it right away.

Answered.

And now you need to answer a question ... please show us where anyone here criticized jews or muslims for not wanting to deal with pork?
 
So what do y'all think of replacing the constitution with the Koran? I'm all for it, if they write it out on pigskin.
 
They don't say it is being or has been used.

Also visit the NY Times at:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/r/religion_and_belief/index.html?query=PIGS&field=des&match=exact

I don't suppose you are going to get any official acknowledgement of this plan.

SUNDAY, August 28, 1994; Fat in the Fire


Good thing peace is busting out all over the Middle East, because Moshe Antelman of Rehovot, Israel, has developed a singularly nasty weapon for the next war: a bullet that contains pork fat. Antelman, a rabbi and chemist, developed the lard-laden ammo for use against devout Muslims, who believe any contact with pig flesh robs the soul of its chance to enter paradise. Like Hamlet, who refrains from killing his wicked stepfather at prayer since the old man would go to heaven, Antelman isn't content with mere death.

His sentiments are best summed up in the words of a villain in a less respected work, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer": "Kill him. Kill him a lot."

 
Last edited:
I showed you evidence: The quote from Deuteronomy. It's as clear as it can get.
No, you ably demonstrated that you are either deliberately deceitful, or that you know even less about Christian doctrine than you do about English idiomatic language, medical science, or even the blasphemy laws of your own country.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=10&version=31

Acts 10:9-16
9About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."

14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."

15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

Romans 14:13-21
13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.


You fail again, Claus.
 
Are there any restrictions on what Christians can eat, even at certain times?

Yes, as noted in my previous post, the only restrictions at all are based upon respecting the beliefs of others. Other than that, there are no restrictions.
 
I guess the BBC and Agence France-Presse don't qualify for you then.

They report of someone suggesting the use. Not someone actually using it.

Why don't you ask him next time you seehim?

What kind of arrogant response is that? Answer the question, Steve. You make the claim, you provide the evidence.

It's in the news accounts. See BBC account for:

"Israeli Deputy Defence Minister Yaacov Edri said he supported the proposal. "

He's a deputy defense minister. Is that the best you can do? Is this the official stance of the Israeli government? Yes or no.

Why don't you ask them the next time you run into the Chief of the Israeli Police?

Don't be flippant, Steve. Answer the question.

Answered.

No, Steve. You did not answer the questions in full. Please do so.

And stop being an arrogant arse about this. If you want to argue your case, please do so, without resorting to these destructive ways.

Please argue your case without resorting to name calling.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No, you ably demonstrated that you are either deliberately deceitful, or that you know even less about Christian doctrine than you do about English idiomatic language, medical science, or even the blasphemy laws of your own country.

...
Acts 10:9-16

...

Romans 14:13-21

...

You fail again, Claus.

Ehhh...no. I don't. You have, however, proven my point. Thanks.
 
I cannot answer questions which are not in the news accounts. They speak for themselves. What makes you believe I have any more knowledge of the matter than what you can read in these brief accounts which I furnished. I am sorry the BBC and AFP don't qualify for you but then again that's your choice.

Show me also where I said the lard in the buses plan was deployed? Be specific. Quote me exactly. Thank you.

Also please show me where I or anyone here criticized jews or muslims for not wanting to deal with pork, especially since I have provided an account that indicates Jews don't mind "dealing" with pork, its just eating it that they have a problem with.
 
Also visit the NY Times at:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/r/religion_and_belief/index.html?query=PIGS&field=des&match=exact

I don't suppose you are going to get any official acknowledgement of this plan.

[/font]
All of you news stories say that these plans have been proposed, none show that they ever have been seriously considered, and none show that if they where used, they would have any effect.
as for not getting official acknowledgment, what would be the point of doing it in secret?
 
All of you news stories say that these plans have been proposed, none show that they ever have been seriously considered, and none show that if they where used, they would have any effect.
as for not getting official acknowledgment, what would be the point of doing it in secret?

I did not say these plans were deployed. I did not say they would be done, which means, if deployed, in secret. I said that if they were proposals then the government would not likely officially acknowledge them although in the news accounts it is obvious the government
is/was aware of them especially since these proposals first surfaced in Israeli papers although I am sure the government of Israel monitors the BBC and the AFP as well.

Here is the AFP Account from a South African newspaper:

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=79&art_id=qw1076573887833M323&set_id=1

Remember that this is old news.

I agree Israel is pretty circumspect about pending operations or plans and
does not acknowledge until afterwards and there is nothing that indivcates this was the case with these proposals. The mere fact that there were proposals involving a pork based weapon against moslem terrorists indicates some interest and support in the subject.
 
Last edited:
I cannot answer questions which are not in the news accounts. They speak for themselves. What makes you believe I have any more knowledge of the matter than what you can read in these brief accounts which I furnished. I am sorry the BBC and AFP don't qualify for you but then again that's your choice.

You made the claim that pig lard was used to thwart suicide bombers in Israel.

Show me also where I said the lard in the buses plan was deployed? Be specific. Quote me exactly. Thank you.

Post #220:

And here is the answer to your request for additional news sources on the use of pig lard to thwart suicide bombers in Israel

Where has lard been used in buses?

I did not say these plans were deployed.

Yes you did, you liar.

I did not say they would be done, which means, if deployed, in secret. I said that if they were proposals then the government would not likely officially acknowledge them although in the news accounts it is obvious the government is/was aware of them especially since these proposals first surfaced in Israeli papers although I am sure the government of Israel monitors the BBC and the AFP as well.

Backpedalling like crazy. :rolleyes:

I agree Israel is pretty circumspect about pending operations or plans and
does not acknowledge until afterwards and there is nothing that indivcates this was the case with these proposals. The mere fact that there were proposals involving a pork based weapon against moslem terrorists indicates some interest and support in the subject.

Ah, so you cannot back up your previous claim. Now, they are only "proposals". You told a lie, when you claimed that pig lard had been used in buses.

Now:

If pig lard is being put in buses, who will use the buses at all?

Why is forcefeeding Christians for information not torture?

Why shouldn't the religious fanatics welcome that you kill them, if they think that it will not only earn them martyrdom, but also doom you to eternal hell?
 
I have been searching the net for reputable sources on what will happen if a muslim eats pork by mistake, or are somehow forced to do it (as in getting shot with pig lard). I didn't find anything of value, for or against.

I did this, because as a child I clearly remember asking a muslim in my class what would happen if he ate ham by mistake. And he answered that it didn't matter if it wasn't his own fault. Purely anecdotal of course.

Here's another anecdote, because I just joined channel #Islam on DALnet 15 minutes ago (an IRC network), and asked the following question to the 60+ users there:

[22:34:26] <Thomas> hi all, im having an argument on a forum that you guys perhaps can settle.. what happens if a muslim eats pork by mistake, or are somehow forced to eat it? thanks

[22:34:48] <H-1> Thomas : He will be forgiven.

Nobody objected to this, and nothing more was said about it.
 
Last edited:
Post #220:

"And here is the answer to your request for additional news sources on the use of pig lard to thwart suicide bombers in Israel"

Again you have an English language problem. I did not say was used, I did not say deployed. I said the subject of its use as a deterrent against suicide bombers in news accounts which means, in fact, I was referring all and sundry including you my friend to read the news sources which were requested by Darat on the subject of this use. You changed my statement on the subject being "the use of" to something you yourself thought up saying I said "was used." I did not say it "was used." You made this up in your head based on your faulty appreciation of English usage. Or you deliberately subverted the meaning of my prefatory comment.

By constantly calling people liars on the most trivial evidence you constantly remind me of the badly behaved child who calls his parents liars because daddy had to work and he couldn't take you to a picture show. Did you call daddy a liar because of this?

Learn to read and comprehend English. Make sure your premises are clear and beyond reproach before labeling someone a liar. I did not lie. I did not say the proposals were put into effect, I referred you to the news accounts. Since you can or should be able to read them why would I lie in my preface to them?
 
Last edited:
Post #220:

And here is the answer to your request for additional news sources on the use of pig lard to thwart suicide bombers in Israel

...
Holy crap. Claus' problem is not English, but a hyper-steroidal pedanticism which causes him to argue dishonestly and in constant pursuit of vandetta.

Who else could have turned Steve Grenard into a sympathetic figure around the JREF forums, for crying out loud?
 
Again you have an English language problem. I did not say was used, I did not say deployed. I said the subject of its use as a deterrent against suicide bombers in news accounts which means, in fact, I was referring all and sundry including you my friend to read the news sources which were requested by Darat on the subject of this use. You changed my statement on the subject being "the use of" to something you yourself thought up saying I said "was used." I did not say it "was used." You made this up in your head based on your faulty appreciation of English usage. Or you deliberately subverted the menaing of my prefatory comment.

By constantly calling people liars on the most trivial evidence you constantly remind me of the badly behaved child who calls his parents liars because daddy had to work and he couldn't take you to a picture show. Did you call daddy a liar because of this?

Learn to read and comprehend English. Make sure your premises are clear and beyond reproach before labeling someone a liar. I did not lie. I did not say the proposals were put into effect, I referred you to the news accounts. Since you can or should be able to read them why would I lie in my preface to them?

Backpedal all you like, Steve.

If pig lard is being put in buses, who will use the buses at all?

Why is forcefeeding Christians for information not torture?

Why shouldn't the religious fanatics welcome that you kill them, if they think that it will not only earn them martyrdom, but also doom you to eternal hell?

Who else could have turned Steve Grenard into a sympathetic figure around the JREF forums, for crying out loud?

If you think Steve becomes a sympathetic figure because you don't approve of me, what does that say about your level of debating?

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"? How inane is that? Will you side with Sylvia Browne, if she speaks out against James van Praagh?
 

Back
Top Bottom