Demand Koran Replace U.S. Constitution

[Darat]

Look, I know that you don't have many Jews around you because they all somehow got killed about 60 years ago, but Jews can eat pork or any unclean food if they really need it. They just can't smack their lips. Inhaling pork aerosol if they can't do anything about it is not a biggie.

Look I know that you don't have many Muslims around you because somehow they are all terrorists and are locked up in Guantanamo bay but Muslims can eat pork or any unclean food it they really need it. They just can't smack their lips. Inhaling pork aerosol if they can't do do anything about it is not a biggie.

 

[gumboot]

Muslims can eat pork or any unclean food it they really need it. They just can't smack their lips. Inhaling pork aerosol if they can't do do anything about it is not a biggie.

I think the question really has nothing to do with whether regular Muslims are ALLOWED to eat pork if they have to.

The questions is whether fanatical islamic terrorists would stop fighting out of fear of pork. Of course it has been cited that they would because of their religion, but this is rather irrelevant. What matters is not what their religion says, but what they actually practise.

And of course, said fanatics tend to be more rigid in their laws. Whereas a regular muslim has options, a fanatic does not. Burqa's for example, are not a compulsory part of muslim female attire. However the Taliban must have missed that little fact. (And I have heard rumours of an all-female platoon of 1st SFOD-D (Delta Force) that take advantage of this fact).

However, if the problem of Pork has been exaggerated for regular muslims, maybe they won't be quite so offended afterall.

-Andrew

 

[gumboot]

OK, you lost me there. Where did that come from?

It came from here

According to an Australian TV report, the United States applied psychological pressure to force enemy Taliban fighters out into the open. The report stated that members of the 173d Airborne Brigade burned Taliban bodies for hygenic reasons.

Psyop specialist Sgt. Jim Baker was recorded reading out a message to the Taliban:

"Attention, Taliban, you are all cowardly dogs. You allowed your fighters to be laid down facing west and burned. You are too scared to retrieve their bodies. This just proves you are the lady boys we always believed you to be."

Another soldier reportedly broadcast statements such as:

"You attack and run away like women. You call yourself Talibs but you are a disgrace to the Muslim religion and you bring shame upon your family. Come and fight like men instead of the cowardly dogs you are."

Reports of the effectiveness of such efforts are unclear.

Depends on what the "what" and "how" is. If you start fighting radical Muslims with something that will offend all Muslims, then you got a major problem on your hands.

In my experience there's very little that doesn't offend all Muslims... they seem a rather sensitive bunch. If we take the current scenarios; Afghanistan and Iraq, I'd say most Muslims are already pretty well offended at this stage. What's a little more if it means stopping the enemy?

You seem to think avoiding giving offence to Muslims is more important than dealing with Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. I don't.

You would bomb a funeral, then?

Well that depends. What is the nature of this funeral? What is the context? If you're referring to the earlier thread, no. I would never give them the guy to bury in the first place.

Very literal: It emphasizes that breaking the rules of war will spark a world-wide criticism.

Firstly, I'm not sure how Haditha is comparable, as the US are signatory to the Hague. Secondly, it really depends on the context. Sometimes when you break the rules of war they give you the highest possible medal for gallantry.

-Andrew

 

[Darat]

I think the question really has nothing to do with whether regular Muslims are ALLOWED to eat pork if they have to.

The questions is whether fanatical islamic terrorists would stop fighting out of fear of pork. Of course it has been cited that they would because of their religion, but this is rather irrelevant. What matters is not what their religion says, but what they actually practise.

And of course, said fanatics tend to be more rigid in their laws. Whereas a regular muslim has options, a fanatic does not. Burqa's for example, are not a compulsory part of muslim female attire. However the Taliban must have missed that little fact. (And I have heard rumours of an all-female platoon of 1st SFOD-D (Delta Force) that take advantage of this fact).

However, if the problem of Pork has been exaggerated for regular muslims, maybe they won't be quite so offended afterall.

-Andrew

I would suggest that since Islam like its close cousins Christianity and Judaism has been a very successful religion (or at least successful at surviving) we should look at what has made it so successful.

One of their survival strategies has in some ways to be very pragmatic - when they have to be. As we can see from this thread both Jews and Muslims have already been shown to make exceptions for pork, whether that be eating it or even just so they can sell it for profit. Christians have even pretty much dropped all their dietary restrictions over the years and indeed we all seem to have no problem in accepting that Christians have always found their way around that irksome teaching of Jesus "turn the other cheek" when they need to. All three of them when you ask about that commandment "thou shall not kill" look like three kids caught doing something naughty and are up in front of the headmaster, "well he started it" - "yeah but that doesn't mean we can't kill them"

In the case of today's Muslim fanatics we know they have already had to reinterpret certain passages of the Koran and the Hadith (that had made suicide a sin for Muslims for many centuries) so they could be taught that Muslims could become suicide bombers..

As I have said all along - this type of idea PWMD (Pork Weapons of Mass Damnation) is only something someone with little knowledge of the religion involved could actually even consider seriously for any length of time. I will also say their seems to be at least of whiff of bigotry involved as well. It seems people are happy to believe that the Jews can have religious dispensations from the prohibition about pork so they can use such weapons but somehow the Muslims wouldn't be able to come up with some religious dispensation - even though it has been shown the same types of exemptions are already in place for Muslims as they are for Jews. Strange.

 

[CFLarsen]

It came from here

I haven't seen this in the media (antipodean news often don't get out from downunder).

It states that they burned the bodies for hygienic reasons, and not to insult Muslims. As for the messages read to the Taliban - standard op, and not against the rules of war. It's the "Yo Momma" method.

In my experience there's very little that doesn't offend all Muslims... they seem a rather sensitive bunch.
If we take the current scenarios; Afghanistan and Iraq, I'd say most Muslims are already pretty well offended at this stage. What's a little more if it means stopping the enemy?

You seem to think avoiding giving offence to Muslims is more important than dealing with Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. I don't.

Oh, no, not at all. I lived in New York on 9/11, so I witnessed the biggest terrorist attack up close and personal. I have no problems fighting these barbaric fanatics. What I do have problems with are tactics that make ourselves barbaric fanatics.

Well that depends. What is the nature of this funeral? What is the context? If you're referring to the earlier thread, no. I would never give them the guy to bury in the first place.

Does it matter what the context is? There will be innocent people there, so they will be hit by the bombs as well.

Firstly, I'm not sure how Haditha is comparable, as the US are signatory to the Hague.

Yet, broke the rules of war, with ensuing worldwide outrage.

Secondly, it really depends on the context. Sometimes when you break the rules of war they give you the highest possible medal for gallantry.

Examples?

 

[CFLarsen]

As I have said all along - this type of idea PWMD (Pork Weapons of Mass Damnation) is only something someone with little knowledge of the religion involved could actually even consider seriously for any length of time. I will also say their seems to be at least of whiff of bigotry involved as well. It seems people are happy to believe that the Jews can have religious dispensations from the prohibition about pork so they can use such weapons but somehow the Muslims wouldn't be able to come up with some religious dispensation - even though it has been shown the same types of exemptions are already in place for Muslims as they are for Jews. Strange.

Well said.

 

[Mycroft]

You really don't see anything wrong with issuing Jews gasmasks to prevent them from being gassed with pork fumes intented to prevent Muslims from going to Heaven?

Wow. Please seek employment in Dubya's press organization.

Explain what you see as wrong with that picture, please.

 

[brodski]

And of course, said fanatics tend to be more rigid in their laws.

Do you actually have any evidence for this? I know asking for evidence for a religious fanatics devotion to religious law sounds stupid on the face of it, but judging from the actions of some of the 9/11 hijackers, especially regarding alcohol, it would seem that (at least some) fanatics are much less strict about religious law, but only when applying it to themselves. Given the dispensation from following all Islamic dogma that the 9/11 hijackers seemed to give themselves, I can almost guarantee that placing sacks of pork fat on planes would not stop another 9/11. I can see no reason for believing that other terrorists would be any less flexible.

 

[gumboot]

I would suggest that since Islam like its close cousins Christianity and Judaism has been a very successful religion (or at least successful at surviving) we should look at what has made it so successful.

Well I've always said Islam and especially Christianity (and less so Judaism) are excellent examples of evolution in action.

Heck, they even spawn lots of independent species that originated from a common ancestor...

In the case of today's Muslim fanatics we know they have already had to reinterpret certain passages of the Koran and the Hadith (that had made suicide a sin for Muslims for many centuries) so they could be taught that Muslim
s could become suicide bombers..

Absolutely... and I think anyone would be wrong to argue the pork thing would work based on religious teachings. The only thing I could see making it useful would be if, in PRACTISE, said fundamentalists had such an overwhelming unbending abhorrance to pork. I've seen no evidence that this is true, and personally doubt it is at all, but was arguing from the theoretically position of it being true (as I was more interested in the moral question of using such a technique).

It also should be noted that the religious flexability of Islam works both ways - they will claim absolutely strict adherence to their religion if it is useful for them (say, if they want an excuse to riot and burn embassies as a result of a naughty cartoon).

As I have said all along - this type of idea PWMD (Pork Weapons of Mass Damnation) is only something someone with little knowledge of the religion involved could actually even consider seriously for any length of time. I will also say their seems to be at least of whiff of bigotry involved as well. It seems people are happy to believe that the Jews can have religious dispensations from the prohibition about pork so they can use such weapons but somehow the Muslims wouldn't be able to come up with some religious dispensation - even though it has been shown the same types of exemptions are already in place for Muslims as they are for Jews. Strange.

Certainly all true, if we're talking about Islam. I get the impression some may have been. Just want to clarify (again...) that I'm talking about the practical observances of specific people. Islam doesn't come into it.

-Andrew

 

[Darat]

...snip...

It also should be noted that the religious flexability of Islam works both ways - they will claim absolutely strict adherence to their religion if it is useful for them (say, if they want an excuse to riot and burn embassies as a result of a naughty cartoon).

Again it's like most religious people I've observed - more of a "pick and mix" approach to what they consider important at a given time. To people not of that religion (and I bet quite a few of that religion) it becomes indistinguishable from hypocrisy.

Certainly all true, if we're talking about Islam. I get the impression some may have been. Just want to clarify (again...) that I'm talking about the practical observances of specific people. Islam doesn't come into it.

-Andrew

I agree and that's why I've said in principle I don't think it would be wrong - I consider it the lesser of two evils, however I suspect that there is nothing like this you would find could be practically used.

 

[gumboot]

It states that they burned the bodies for hygienic reasons, and not to insult Muslims. As for the messages read to the Taliban - standard op, and not against the rules of war. It's the "Yo Momma" method.

The burning of the bodies was not the psy ops operation I was talking about. But they took advantage of a specific custom of the enemy and used it to attempt to insult them, and thus impair their ability to fight effectively.

The "pork bullet" proposal does the same thing.

What I do have problems with are tactics that make ourselves barbaric fanatics.

I totally agree. I just don't think we agree at all about how this particular tactic fits into the equation. I don't consider it barbaric. Fanatical, would of course depend entirely on the way it is implemented. Many American soldiers fighting terrorists conventionally are rather fanatically about it.

Does it matter what the context is? There will be innocent people there, so they will be hit by the bombs as well.

That would be context.

During WWI, for example, it was not uncommon for funerals of soldiers to come under attack. All present were, of course, combatants.

If it is a funeral that involves civilians (I'm not interested in the use of the word "innocent"), then the context would make me firmly against such a tactic.

Were it a funeral attended by Goering, Rommel, and Hitler, I would say "bombs away".

Yet, broke the rules of war, with ensuing worldwide outrage.

Yes but given the hypothetical scenario was a non-signatory breaking said rules, I don't see how Haditha (a signatory breaking said rules) relates.

Examples?

Certainly.

William Edward Sanders (VC, DSO) was a New Zealander recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest and most prestigious award for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces.

On 30 April 1917 about 180 miles south of Ireland, in the Atlantic, Lieutenant Sanders was in command of HMS Prize, a three-masted topsail schooner (one of the Q ships) when she was attacked by German U-boat U-93 and badly damaged by shellfire. After the 'Panic party' had taken to the boats and the ship appeared to be sinking, the U-boat approached to within 80 yards of her port quarter, whereupon the White Ensign was hoisted and Prize opened fire. Within a few minutes the submarine was on fire and her bows rose in the air, whilst the Prize was further damaged. The U-boat disappeared from sight, and was believed to have been sunk by the crew of the Prize and by several of the German crew (including her captain) who had been blown or jumped into the sea.

Alfred Clive Hulme (January 24, 1911-September 2, 1982) was a New Zealand recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest and most prestigious award for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces.

He was 30 years old and a Sergeant in the 23rd Battalion, 2nd N.Z.E.F. (The Canterbury Regiment), New Zealand Expeditionary Force during the Second World War when the following deed took place for which he was awarded the VC.

During the period 20/28 May 1941 in Crete, Greece, Sergeant Hulme displayed outstanding leadership and courage. At Maleme he led a party against the enemy who were attacking with rifles, machine-guns and mortars. At Galatos he drove the enemy away from a school building with hand grenades. At Suda Bay he killed five snipers and at Styles he wiped out a mortar crew and accounted for three more snipers.

In 2006, law professor Bill Hodge argued that Hulme's act was "prima facie a war crime", having broken the rules of war by wearing German uniform when killing the five snipers.

Both of these acts are in violation of the Laws of International Armed Conflict:

In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden -

To employ poison or poisoned weapons;

To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

To declare that no quarter will be given;

To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;

To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;

To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war.

-Article 23
Annex to the Convention,
Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV)
Hague Conference, 1907

As a New Zealander I hold both of these men in the highest regard, and consider them national heroes. However they are both also, legally, war criminals.

Funny how that can work out.

-Andrew

ETA. Added bolding to VC citations for emphasis.

ETA.

Opps. Made a MAJOR boo-boo. Have confused "White Ensign" with "White Flag of Truce". The "White Ensign" is of course the appropriate colours for the HMS Prize to have flown - had it fired at the U-boat without hoisting the White Ensign it would have been a war crime.

I am happy to say William Sanders did not violate the laws of armed combat. However Alfred Hulme, hero that he is, remains an example.



-Andrew

 

[gumboot]

Incidentally the tactic used by HMS Prize appears to be the same tactic employed by the crew of the HMS Surprise in "Master and Commander: The Far Side Of The World" (and which ever of the books that particular part was taken from - I think "Far Side of the World"...).

-Andrew

 

[The Don]

Except you have to display your true colours before you engage the enemy.

Apparently

At least that's the way it was in the books

I expect the British Navy were less scrupulous

 

[SteveGrenard]

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard :
Demands of 470K moslems living in Sweden:

Larsen: That is a bald-faced lie. The organization only has 77,000 members.

Response: Retract the lie comment please. Clearly I said nothing about the membership of the organization. I referred to the total number, estimated no doubt, of muslems living in Sweden and not how many belong to the association.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard :
The fact that Claus Larsen and a few others would rather appease them than offend them indicates they have not studied these sorts of activities or else agree with them.

What are you talking about? How am I "appeasing" these Muslims?

Response: By worrying about offending the sensibilities of people who kidnap innocents such as journalists or office workers and who videotape themselves chopping their heads off after which they arrange to gleefully show off their work on television. And then you have unmitigated gall to suggest that shooting them with pork lard or pork rinds is barbaric.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard :

Larsen: Of course. The proposal was rejected.

Response: The 55 page diatribe and list of demands is still floating around as the moslems in Sweden continue to lobby for them. The mere fact that any moslem group has the temerity to suggest to the U.S. that its constitution should be replaced by the Koran or to Sweden that Arabic should be taught in its public schools and so on and so forth should be serious cause for concern. You really may want to start to worry when they demand that Sweden enact decapitation as the punishment for marrying without family permission or the severing of a hand for theft if the perp isn't hungry that is.

Sorry they are offending me. They do so by decapitating innocents, and I knew this back in 1978 when the Wahabis in saudi did this on live television in a public market in Ryadh.

I have absolutely no sympathy or respect for these fanatics. They are extremist whackos who deserve any insult we can think of. I am sorry we have anything to do with them. If they come to my country and cannot respect my culture and laws they should be contained in theborders of their own lands where they can engage in tribal warfare with one another until they wipe themselves out. Good riddance to them.

 

[monoman]

Incidentally the tactic used by HMS Prize appears to be the same tactic employed by the crew of the HMS Surprise in "Master and Commander: The Far Side Of The World" (and which ever of the books that particular part was taken from - I think "Far Side of the World"...).

-Andrew

Yes I noticed that.

Oh, and btw, remind me never to engage in combat with a kiwi, i'm likely to get sucker punched

 

[drkitten]

Except you have to display your true colours before you engage the enemy.

My understanding is that "before" you engage basically means that the flag needs to be up there when you fire the guns. Luring the enemy in under false colours, then hoisting the true colours just before firing is apparently a legitimate ruse of war..

 

[CFLarsen]

Explain what you see as wrong with that picture, please.

O...K.

Giving Jews gas masks to prevent them from being gassed. Only Muslims are gassed. With pork fumes.

Does that make certain images from, say, 60-65 years ago, Mycroft? No?

The burning of the bodies was not the psy ops operation I was talking about. But they took advantage of a specific custom of the enemy and used it to attempt to insult them, and thus impair their ability to fight effectively.

The "pork bullet" proposal does the same thing.

I don't read it like that. It was for hygienic reasons, not religious reasons.

I totally agree. I just don't think we agree at all about how this particular tactic fits into the equation. I don't consider it barbaric. Fanatical, would of course depend entirely on the way it is implemented. Many American soldiers fighting terrorists conventionally are rather fanatically about it.

Yet, they are still bound by rules of war, and, for the vast majority, fight accordingly.

Opps. Made a MAJOR boo-boo. Have confused "White Ensign" with "White Flag of Truce". The "White Ensign" is of course the appropriate colours for the HMS Prize to have flown - had it fired at the U-boat without hoisting the White Ensign it would have been a war crime.

I am happy to say William Sanders did not violate the laws of armed combat. However Alfred Hulme, hero that he is, remains an example.



-Andrew

Well, one down...

Response: Retract the lie comment please. Clearly I said nothing about the membership of the organization. I referred to the total number, estimated no doubt, of muslems living in Sweden and not how many belong to the association.

Clearly, you said that these were the demands of 470K muslims living in Sweden. That is a bald-faced lie.

Want to retract that lie?

Response: By worrying about offending the sensibilities of people who kidnap innocents such as journalists or office workers and who videotape themselves chopping their heads off after which they arrange to gleefully show off their work on television. And then you have unmitigated gall to suggest that shooting them with pork lard or pork rinds is barbaric.

I am not worried about offending the sensibilities of these fanatics. I am worried about behaving like a civilized human being, Steve. Your method is not only barbaric, it won't work anyway.

Response: The 55 page diatribe and list of demands is still floating around as the moslems in Sweden continue to lobby for them. The mere fact that any moslem group has the temerity to suggest to the U.S. that its constitution should be replaced by the Koran or to Sweden that Arabic should be taught in its public schools and so on and so forth should be serious cause for concern. You really may want to start to worry when they demand that Sweden enact decapitation as the punishment for marrying without family permission or the severing of a hand for theft if the perp isn't hungry that is.

They are free to suggest what they want. Sweden is a free country, Steve. Are you suggesting that Swedish Muslims are censored?

Sorry they are offending me. They do so by decapitating innocents, and I knew this back in 1978 when the Wahabis in saudi did this on live television in a public market in Ryadh.

Who were those? How do you know they were innocents?

I'm not advocating that they be executed, regardless of what they did. I just want to know how you know they were innocent.

I have absolutely no sympathy or respect for these fanatics. They are extremist whackos who deserve any insult we can think of. I am sorry we have anything to do with them. If they come to my country and cannot respect my culture and laws they should be contained in theborders of their own lands where they can engage in tribal warfare with one another until they wipe themselves out. Good riddance to them.

All while they wipe out innocent women and children, too. Kill'em all, let God sort'em out?

 

[The Don]

My understanding is that "before" you engage basically means that the flag needs to be up there when you fire the guns. Luring the enemy in under false colours, then hoisting the true colours just before firing is apparently a legitimate ruse of war..

Which is exactly my understanding too.....

 

[SteveGrenard]

O...K.

Giving Jews gas masks to prevent them from being gassed. Only Muslims are gassed. With pork fumes.

Does that make certain images from, say, 60-65 years ago, Mycroft? No?

And still what's wrong with this picture? We are gassing them with pork? You make it sound like we are gassing them with nerve gas or something. It is non-lethal aerosol dispersal designed to douse them in pig product. As I said above these fanatics such as Hezbollah and the terrorists in Iraq who kidnap and decapitate civilians do not deserve any respect, religious or otherwise. Any peaceful muslim would agree with this.

I don't read it like that. It was for hygienic reasons, not religious reasons.

It still insulted them and I say good.

Yet, they are still bound by rules of war, and, for the vast majority, fight accordingly.

There is no rule of war that prohibits the use of paintball or water guns filled with a solution of pig grease or dried aerosolized pork rinds.

Clearly, you said that these were the demands of 470K muslims living in Sweden. That is a bald-faced lie.

Want to retract that lie?

Clearly if you knew about this as you claim you do you will know that all the muslims in Sweden would be in favor of the demands to islamicize the country. Denmark and Norway would be next. I'll be sure to nominate your name for the committee. Its nice to know they have a friend in Claus Larsen.

I am not worried about offending the sensibilities of these fanatics. I am worried about behaving like a civilized human being, Steve. Your method is not only barbaric, it won't work anyway.

You miss the point. If you honestly think that chopping off heads or lobbing rockets on civlians or blowing up buses of commuters is not barbaric but shooting at people with water pistols is you have a more serious problem than I thought.

They are free to suggest what they want. Sweden is a free country, Steve. Are you suggesting that Swedish Muslims are censored?

Not suggesting, demanding. And when they start gaining citizenship and running for office you may want to stand out of the way. If you don't draw the line somewhere you will not like what the future portends.

Who were those? How do you know they were innocents?

I know. A Saudi pricess elopes with a Saudi man she meets in Lebanon back in 1978. She and her husband go back to Saudi Arabia where they are evtnually arrested, tried (by her own grandfather if I recall). She is beheaded in the public square and her husband is executed by shooting., You are a very sick and demented individual if you feel these kids were not completely innocent of any offense deserving the punishment they got. You won't have long to wait before the axeman is operating in your country and then you will remember this little debate.

I'm not advocating that they be executed, regardless of what they did. I just want to know how you know they were innocent.

Think about it. If it was your son who married a Saudi girl and then was executed because her father didn't approve of the marriage ... how would you like that?

All while they wipe out innocent women and children, too. Kill'em all, let God sort'em out?

The problem is you and I both know there is no god that will sort anything out. Killing them and allowing them to die with a smile on their lips is too good for them. I rather they live in shame, humiliation and fear of further demonization. You know this is a tactic muslims use against thiefs when they cut off their right hand. This is more than just a barbaric punishment, it is designed to humiliate and shame the perpetrator since they use their left hand to wipe their rears and their right hand to fold their pitas and mop up their food. With their right hand cut off they now must eat with their left hand which was reserved for dirty tasks. They are no longer accepted as beiing acceptable to eat in the company of others. They become social outcasts. So its okay for them to impose truly barbaric punishments and humiliating but we must be ever so respectful of their feelings. Bull.

 

[CFLarsen]

And still what's wrong with this picture? We are gassing them with pork? You make it sound like we are gassing them with nerve gas or something. It is non-lethal aerosol dispersal designed to douse them in pig product. As I said above these fanatics such as Hezbollah and the terrorists in Iraq who kidnap and decapitate civilians do not deserve any respect, religious or otherwise. Any peaceful muslim would agree with this.

Ah, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Just who are you to decide what Muslims will agree to? Have you contacted the press to let them know just how you will solve the crisis in the MiddleEast as well as the Islamist terrorists?

It still insulted them and I say good.

Yes, we know that you stop at nothing to get back at those you don't like.

There is no rule of war that prohibits the use of paintball or water guns filled with a solution of pig grease or dried aerosolized pork rinds.

Go ahead, Steve. Advocate this to someone who can do something about it.

Clearly if you knew about this as you claim you do you will know that all the muslims in Sweden would be in favor of the demands to islamicize the country.

Huh?? How do you know this??

Denmark and Norway would be next. I'll be sure to nominate your name for the committee. Its nice to know they have a friend in Claus Larsen.

Perhaps if you took your time to educate yourself, you would know about the Democratic Muslims in Denmark, who vows to support and uphold the Danish constitution, work for equality for all, men and woman, Muslims or not, and are against the death penalty. To mention a few.

Are these people demanding to islamicize Denmark?

You miss the point. If you honestly think that chopping off heads or lobbing rockets on civlians or blowing up buses of commuters is not barbaric but shooting at people with water pistols is you have a more serious problem than I thought.

I have already stated that I do find these practices barbaric. I've been comparing your methods with theirs all along, Steve.

Not suggesting, demanding. And when they start gaining citizenship and running for office you may want to stand out of the way. If you don't draw the line somewhere you will not like what the future portends.

You have a liking for censorship, we know that. But think about what you are saying, Steve. You are suggesting that believers in one particular religion are censored. Are there any other groups that you want silenced? Skeptics, Muslims...who else?

I know. A Saudi pricess elopes with a Saudi man she meets in Lebanon back in 1978. She and her husband go back to Saudi Arabia where they are evtnually arrested, tried (by her own grandfather if I recall). She is beheaded in the public square and her husband is executed by shooting., You are a very sick and demented individual if you feel these kids were not completely innocent of any offense deserving the punishment they got. You won't have long to wait before the axeman is operating in your country and then you will remember this little debate.

Think about it. If it was your son who married a Saudi girl and then was executed because her father didn't approve of the marriage ... how would you like that?

"I know" is not a credible answer, especially not when it comes from you.

The problem is you and I both know there is no god that will sort anything out. Killing them and allowing them to die with a smile on their lips is too good for them. I rather they live in shame, humiliation and fear of further demonization. You know this is a tactic muslims use against thiefs when they cut off their right hand. This is more than just a barbaric punishment, it is designed to humiliate and shame the perpetrator since they use their left hand to wipe their rears and their right hand to fold their pitas and mop up their food. With their right hand cut off they now must eat with their left hand which was reserved for dirty tasks. They are no longer accepted as beiing acceptable to eat in the company of others. They become social outcasts. So its okay for them to impose truly barbaric punishments and humiliating but we must be ever so respectful of their feelings. Bull.

Once again, you prove that you are as barbaric as them. It is just worse in your case, because you don't have the excuse of ignorance. You choose to be barbaric.