Demand Koran Replace U.S. Constitution

[HarryKeogh]

Personally, I support the cartoons being published. It is a matter of freedom of speech.

But they published the cartoons and even after the violence other outlets reprinted them. They knew they were grossly offending Muslims as it was attacking one of their tenets they hold very sacred.

Hitting a Muslim outpost with a (trying not to laugh) pork grenade with the intention that it would offend them so much to make them stop works on the same basis. It goes against beliefs they hold sacred.

Many people who think the pork as weapon idea is ridiculous believe so because it will offend the Muslim community at large. Didn't the cartoons do just that?

Does freedom of speech give us the right to offend a religion and it's practitioners as much as we want but rules of engagement forbid using non-lethal weapons because it may greatly offend followers of a religion?

 

[AWPrime]

You really don't see the problems with such a photo?

No

But I rather fire hollowtip, filled with bacon, bullets on muslim terrorists.

 

[CFLarsen]

If I'm misunderstanding you, Claus, please clarify for me.

Again: By employing even worse methods, we are not just antagonizing the rest of the Muslim world, we are also losing what you might call the moral upper-hand.

But they published the cartoons and even after the violence other outlets reprinted them. They knew they were grossly offending Muslims as it was attacking one of their tenets they hold very sacred.

Hitting a Muslim outpost with a (trying not to laugh) pork grenade with the intention that it would offend them so much to make them stop works on the same basis. It goes against beliefs they hold sacred.

Many people who think the pork as weapon idea is ridiculous believe so because it will offend the Muslim community at large. Didn't the cartoons do just that?

Does freedom of speech give us the right to offend a religion and it's practitioners as much as we want but rules of engagement forbid using non-lethal weapons because it may greatly offend followers of a religion?

Yes. Freedom of speech gives you the right to be a jackass. It does not give you the right to fight your enemy any way you see fit.

If the latter was the case, how can we claim that we are the civilized ones? Why should fence-sitters choose our way, if our way is more barbaric than the way of our enemies?

You can say what you want, but you can't do what you want.

No

But I rather fire hollowtip, filled with bacon, bullets on muslim terrorists.

What would that solve, if you hit someone who weren't a muslim terrorist?

If you knew he was a muslim terrorist, why not just shoot him with ordinary bullets?

Or, why not bring him to justice?

 

[HarryKeogh]

Again: By employing even worse methods, we are not just antagonizing the rest of the Muslim world, we are also losing what you might call the moral upper-hand.

so this whole using pork thing is a worse method than which terrorist methods?

Yes. Freedom of speech gives you the right to be a jackass. It does not give you the right to fight your enemy any way you see fit.

If the latter was the case, how can we claim that we are the civilized ones? Why should fence-sitters choose our way, if our way is more barbaric than the way of our enemies?

You can say what you want, but you can't do what you want.

But terrorist groups used the drawings as ammunition to spark outrage against the western world. By reprinting them weren't we antagonizing the Muslim world...something you claim using pork-based weaponry would do (and I agree with you. It certainly would)?

You can say and do whatever you want. The question is should you.

 

[Darat]

so this whole using pork thing is a worse method than which terrorist methods?

I think this is perhaps where there is disagreement - I don't judge or measure my actions or the actions of my country by what my enemies do.

By that I mean I don't say "well they cut off the heads of innocent people whilst they are still alive so that means I can do anything up to that and still be better". I start with my own principles e.g. that people shouldn't be subject to "cruel and unusual punishment" and I use my principles to judge myself and my country.

But terrorist groups used the drawings as ammunition to spark outrage against the western world. By reprinting them weren't we antagonizing the Muslim world...something you claim using pork-based weaponry would do (and I agree with you. It certainly would)?

You can say and do whatever you want. The question is should you.

Again I believe in the countries like the USA and the UK we have our own principles and ideals and we should judge our actions by them - not the principles of other countries.

Now there are times and circumstances when we find certain of our principles in conflict with one another and then we have to make judgments. So in the case of the cartoons we have our principle of (limited) free-speech and our principle of not wanting to offend people, we then have to balance these and decide for ourselves where we decide we draw the line.

 

[CFLarsen]

so this whole using pork thing is a worse method than which terrorist methods?

It is a worse method in the sense that it doesn't hit merely the terrorists, but all Muslims. Also, it sinks us to an even lower moral standard than theirs.

Perhaps the worst thing is that it doesn't work anyway: It won't scare of Muslim terrorists, because they can get out of the predicament anyway.

It is just so idiotic an idea.

But terrorist groups used the drawings as ammunition to spark outrage against the western world. By reprinting them weren't we antagonizing the Muslim world...something you claim using pork-based weaponry would do (and I agree with you. It certainly would)?

You can say and do whatever you want. The question is should you.

Who decides if you should say something? Can you say you have even a modicum of freedom of speech, if other people constantly decide what you should say?

 

[Mycroft]

Personally, I support the cartoons being published. It is a matter of freedom of speech.

Steve, however, is a little fuzzy on that issue.

Here, Steve is in favor (and uses that against me):



Here, Steve is against it (and uses that against CSICOP):



Hypocrisy or opportunism? You decide.

This seems a bit off-topic. Arn't you just attacking Steve because he also said things you disagreed with in the past?

 

[CFLarsen]

This seems a bit off-topic. Arn't you just attacking Steve because he also said things you disagreed with in the past?

No. I pointed out that Steve takes two different positions, depending on the circumstances.

Why do you see that as an "attack"?

Have you gone through the examples I showed? Could you do so and explain why you don't think it is evidence?

If Steve thinks he has the solution, why shouldn't he contact the press with his idea?

 

[Mycroft]

Yes. You don't agree. Fine with me.

You are unable to support your assertion. Fine with me.

Yes. You don't agree. Fine with me.

It’s not so much that I agree of disagree as that I find the statement so packed with hyperbole as to be meaningless. Trying to find an alternative to killing people is not “pure evil” by any rational persons definition.

Because I can back it up with evidence: Muslims are not all fanatics, like Steve wants us to think.

Well, you say you could back up your opinions with evidence, but then you don’t. If we agree not all Muslims are fanatics, that still doesn’t demonstrate that you’re in a better position to predict their reactions than anyone else.

If Steve thinks he has the solution, why not? If he isn't man enough to stand behind his words and actually do what he can to stop this, is he not just someone who is full of hot air?

He seems to be standing behind his words. Your specific test seems arbitrary and silly.

Some are, sure. I haven't seen any data on just how many.

So either way, the issue isn’t really what Muslims think, but how many think one way and how many think in other ways. Both of you have provided about the same amount of evidence on this.

Depends on the means. Democratic Muslims in Denmark support the Danish constitution, are democratic, are in favor of equal rights between sexes and are against the death penalty.

All of them?

Go through the examples I showed and explain why you don't think so.

I have already said I have seen no evidence. If there is a specific piece of evidence you believe I have overlooked, you are free to bring it to my attention.

 

[Mycroft]

No. I pointed out that Steve takes two different positions, depending on the circumstances.

That may have been your intent, but I don't see that's been accomplished.

Why do you see that as an "attack"?

Because it seems as though you're just pointing to previous statements and claiming he's stupid for saying them.

Have you gone through the examples I showed? Could you do so and explain why you don't think it is evidence?

The burden of proof is on you.

If Steve thinks he has the solution, why shouldn't he contact the press with his idea?

Most military tactics work better when you don't announce them in the press first.

 

[CFLarsen]

You are unable to support your assertion. Fine with me.

Huh? What assertion?

It’s not so much that I agree of disagree as that I find the statement so packed with hyperbole as to be meaningless. Trying to find an alternative to killing people is not “pure evil” by any rational persons definition.

I'm fine with that.

Well, you say you could back up your opinions with evidence, but then you don’t. If we agree not all Muslims are fanatics, that still doesn’t demonstrate that you’re in a better position to predict their reactions than anyone else.

I didn't say I were in a better position to predict their reactions. I showed evidence that not all Muslims were of the same opinion.

He seems to be standing behind his words. Your specific test seems arbitrary and silly.

Why? If he thinks it will work, why not contact the press? Doesn't he want an end to the violence?

So either way, the issue isn’t really what Muslims think, but how many think one way and how many think in other ways. Both of you have provided about the same amount of evidence on this.

Wrong. Steve claimed that all Swedish Muslims were behind the demands. Clearly, he is wrong.

All of them?

Yes. When they sign up, they have to agree to the goals of the organization.

I have already said I have seen no evidence. If there is a specific piece of evidence you believe I have overlooked, you are free to bring it to my attention.

You close your eyes to reality, then. Your problem, not mine.

 

[SteveGrenard]

To summarize this thread then which I started to publicize a muslim demand to replace the U.S. constitution with the koran and to discuss the demands of france-based muslims to license or dispense with the serving of pork soup in public soup kitchens to hungry people regardless of religion I list the following thoughts:

• I suggested that since the muslims are so concerned about pork that it might make a good psychological weapon against muslim terrorists. It has the advantage of not being fatal and it's nutritious, inexpensive, simple to prepare and can be find in most non-muslim and non-Jewish food outlets.

• Some members don’t feel it will work because the muslim terrorists targeted with such a psyops weapon would simply get permission from their holy guys to to dispense with the ordinary reasons against any contact with pork including eating it.

• I agree that #2 is possible but have been unable to find any regulations that specifically allows for this.

• At least one member here feels the use of psyops against muslim terrorists is barbaric and pure evil and is far worse than killing them. That it is a fate worse than death and should not be considered… feeling, even as he does, that it won’t work due to #2 which then, of course, obviates his rationale.

• This member believes that killing them is preferable to offending them with psyops since they will then be able to go to heaven and have the company of 72 virgins for all eternity.

• This member believes that moderate to mild (reformed, non-orthodox?)or moderate muslims who are our friends will be greatly offended by the use of a psyops weapon such as pork and beans dropped on muslim terrorists. He feels that some of these moderate muslims may be caught in the crossfire and accidentally get contaminated by the pork weapon. He ignores the fact that these moderate muslims are already caught in the cross fire of real bullets and get killed. He does not consider the possibility that there may be some muslims who would prefer to be alive and doused with pork rather than dead in a pure state enabling them to ascend to heaven. I also want to know if anybody knows if women and children who die as uncontaminated are also believed to go to heaven and whether they have 72 virgins available to them as well or is this only a perk for male muslims? We know that martydom is widely accorded to male terrorists of the type who blow up bombs as suicide bombers or who chop off heads of innocent non-combatants.

The arguments as to why pork based weapons will not work has been advanced but there is no sure evidence this is the case. The argument has been advanced by one member here that it is preferable to kill muslims including innocent muslims caught in the cross fire rather than using non-lethal but offensive techniques.

Its been suggested that muslim terrorists do not care about pigs or pork and will
deal with them if they have to. Yet we see examples of muslims demanding removal of pork from soup kitchens in France and the removal of statuary in a public area in Britain because it depicts a pig.

If muslims feel so strongly against pigs that they will demand cartoon characters such as Porky
Pig and Winnie the Pooh’s pal be removed, will they be similarly offended by a
non-lethal but pork based weapons system?




**********************************************************************
The ultimate question is whether (symbolically) pork and pigs are to muslims as kryptonite is to Superman?
*********************************************************************************

 

[AWPrime]

What would that solve, if you hit someone who weren't a muslim terrorist?

Then you have bad luck.

If you knew he was a muslim terrorist, why not just shoot him with ordinary bullets?

Why only kill him?

Or, why not bring him to justice?

Not a worthy investment. Keep only the ones alive that reject their doctrine.

 

[CFLarsen]

Some members don’t feel it will work because the muslim terrorists targeted with such a psyops weapon would simply get permission from their holy guys to to dispense with the ordinary reasons against any contact with pork including eating it.
I agree that #2 is possible but have been unable to find any regulations that specifically allows for this.

Here ya go, Steve:

When the Prophet (peace be upon him) spoke about what he prohibited, he told us to avoid it outright. He did not qualify it in any way. By contrast, when he spoke about what he commanded us to do, he qualified it by saying: ?do of it what you are able?.

The difference is that when we are prohibited from doing something, we are being asked to refrain from acting, which is something that in most instances everyone is capable of. On the other hand, a command is soliciting from us to act, to bring something about. Depending on what it is, it may be something that not everyone will be able to do.

This distinction is significant. For one thing, if we are prohibited from doing something, that prohibition is total unless there is specific textual evidence to the contrary. We must refrain from doing it. It does not matter if we want to do a little of it or a lot. We are prohibited from eating pork. This means that we cannot eat any pork, no matter how small the portion. As for eating pork out of necessity of starvation, there is other evidence permitting that.

By contrast, when it comes to what we are commanded to do, we are only required to do so to the extent that we are able.

It is interesting to note that the statement ?do of it what you are able? conveys a meaning of both ease and difficulty. It implies ease in that it is telling us: ?There is no obligation except when there is ability.?

This meaning reflects the verse on the Qur??n: ?On no soul does Allah place a burden greater than it can bear.? [S?rah al-Baqarah: 286]

It implies difficulty in that it also means: ?You are obligated to do what is commanded of you to the fullest extent of your abilities.?

This principle is embodied in the Qur??n in the verse: ?Fear Allah as much as you are able.? [S?rah al-Tagh?bun: 16]
Source

can a muslim prisoner in a non-muslim prison eat non-zabiha or pork meat. he had requested for muslim or vegetarian meal but his request was denied. so he has been having only the small amount of vegetables that are given with the meat, but does not eat the meat. He is also fasting nafl fasts every alternate day. sometimes he feels very hungry as the vegetables are not enough. Please tell in the light of the Quran and Ahadith if he can have some of the nonzabiha or pork meat for his regular meal and also for his iftar. JazakAllah Khairan
...
I think he cannot eat pork if his situation is not life threatening. He may eat other foods including normal meat as long as he is not sure that the meat slaughtered is by an atheist or pagan or persons who are not Jews or Christians. In other words he could eat the meat which he thinks is most likely slaughtered by Christians or Jews.
Source

Accidentally Eating Forbidden Things


Q. Could you please tell me what should one do if one has accidentally eaten pork? Should he compensate in some way?

A. When you speak about this happening accidentally, I take it that you mean by genuine mistake, as in the case of a person not knowing that the food contains pork, or that he mistook a word for another when ordering his food in a restaurant, etc. In this case, there is no blame attached to him and he does not need to do anything other than to pray for God’s forgiveness. The Prophet (peace be upon him) says: “My nation has been forgiven whatever they do through a genuine mistake, forgetfulness, or compulsion.”

Eating pork is forbidden in Islam. If one does it deliberately, one must repent and seek God’s forgiveness. There is no particular form of compensation. However, whenever we slip or make mistakes or commit an offence, it is always proper to follow that with a good deed or more. The Prophet says: “Follow a bad deed with a good one so as to erase the former.”
Source

At least one member here feels the use of psyops against muslim terrorists is barbaric and pure evil and is far worse than killing them. That it is a fate worse than death and should not be considered… feeling, even as he does, that it won’t work due to #2 which then, of course, obviates his rationale.

Well, since it won't work.....what's your next move?

Can you list, oh, just 10, of these "regular" press stories on how Muslims are being gassed with pork fumes to make them refrain from terrorist actions? Or anything pork-related?

If you can't list them, when will you contact the press to let them know just how you will solve the crisis in the MiddleEast as well as the Islamist terrorists?

I take it that by your silence, you do not want to see more evidence that you are trying to silence and censor skeptics?

Then you have bad luck.

That's not a viable explanation in today's world.

Why only kill him?

What else would you do? For what purpose?

Not a worthy investment. Keep only the ones alive that reject their doctrine.

On the contrary, it is the only worthy investment: Hit them with justice, not terror.

If you don't think these people deserve a fair trial, are there other groups which you similarly don't think deserve a fair trial?

 

[AWPrime]

AWPrime
Then you have bad luck.

That's not a viable explanation in today's world.

That is just reality for you.

AWPrime View Original:
Why only kill him?

What else would you do? For what purpose?

Offend him as to demoralize the other enemy fighters.

AWPrime
Not a worthy investment. Keep only the ones alive that reject their doctrine.

On the contrary, it is the only worthy investment: Hit them with justice, not terror.

If you don't think these people deserve a fair trial, are there other groups which you similarly don't think deserve a fair trial?

Sure if we capture them alive they get a fair trail.

 

[CFLarsen]

That is just reality for you.

What do you mean? You can't do what you want to, even in a war.

Offend him as to demoralize the other enemy fighters.

There are many ways to demoralize the enemy without demoralizing those who aren't your enemy.

Sure if we capture them alive they get a fair trail.

But you said we should only keep those alive that reject their doctrine. That must mean you will kill them, regardless of whether they are found guilty or not, or, if they are found guilty, kill them, regardless of their crime.

 

[gumboot]

But you said we should only keep those alive that reject their doctrine. That must mean you will kill them, regardless of whether they are found guilty or not, or, if they are found guilty, kill them, regardless of their crime.

I'm sorry, but aren't we talking about enemy combatants in a war? What exactly will they be tried for? Being on the other side?

-Andrew

 

[SteveGrenard]

There comes a time in every debate, discussion, negotiation or exchange where continuing becomes a fruitless exercise. This is especially true when debating with a fanatic who harbors deep rooted beliefs that it is better to kill people so they can go to heaven and reap their reward of 72 virgins than it is to try and save lives by using non-lethal but offensive or humiliating weaponry to stop them.

This is no more prevalent than in the current subject matter. We see it every day in the pro-muslim terrorist supporters whose rhetoric carefully skirts or even ignores the anachronistic and highly destructive manner by which they govern themselves, ignores the atrocities they perpetrate and instead blames others for their problems. Many muslims spend their existence lamenting how they have been robbed and oppressed by the other guy while plotting their revenge rather than getting on with their lives, living in peace and prosperity. Before Israel existed as an object of vilification, opposing tribes of muslims did the same thing to each other and to some extent still do. Certainly there are many muslims also who have moved out of the 8th Century and into the present.

The following quotations provided by a fanatic (who says we should kill muslim
terrorists and combatants so they can go to heaven and reap their reward of 72 virgins)
does not provide sufficient evidence to prove that a non-lethal offending pork based weapon would be ignored.

Both refs apply to the necessity of eating pork to avoid starvation or the accidental eating of pork. Neither indicates what the position would be if the one deliberately puts themselves in the path of a pork based weapon. Neither deals with the offensive use of pork as an agent to be used to attack their person. Fanatic muslim extremists live their lives looking at the world in a mirror……for their good deed (killing people) is a non-muslim’s bad one.


So long as the muslim extremists's concept of good and evil is conceptually opposite that of a non-muslim’s, the rights they infringe upon makes them fair game for any kind of psyops designed to humiliate and offend them.

This distinction is significant. For one thing, if we are prohibited from doing something, that prohibition is total unless there is specific textual evidence to the contrary. We must refrain from doing it. It does not matter if we want to do a little of it or a lot. We are prohibited from eating pork. This means that we cannot eat any pork, no matter how small the portion. As for eating pork out of necessity of starvation, there is other evidence permitting that.
http://www.islamicforumeurope.com/live/ife.php?doc=articleitem&itemId=129

Eating pork is forbidden in Islam. If one does it deliberately, one must repent and seek God’s forgiveness. There is no particular form of compensation. However, whenever we slip or make mistakes or commit an offence, it is always proper to follow that with a good deed or more. The Prophet says: “Follow a bad deed with a good one so as to erase the former.” Source

 

[AWPrime]

What do you mean? You can't do what you want to, even in a war.

Reality is that even with the best weapons you still miss now and then.

There are many ways to demoralize the enemy without demoralizing those who aren't your enemy.

Why would they be demoralized?

But you said we should only keep those alive that reject their doctrine. That must mean you will kill them, regardless of whether they are found guilty or not, or, if they are found guilty, kill them, regardless of their crime.

So? Isn't supporting terrorisme a crime?

 

[SteveGrenard]

http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/hams_slam_pork_talk/

HAMS SLAM PORK TALK


Media Watch last night exposed as myth the widely-reported and linked (including here) story of two British banks banning piggy banks lest they offend Muslim customers. “Media Watch has tracked down the origin of this story to a regional paper in the north west of England, The Lancashire Evening Telegraph,” reported host Liz Jackson.

The story was “hogwash”, Media Watch concluded, having obtained denials from the banks involved (which represents something of a breakthrough; on this issue, at least, furiously leftoid Media Watch actually trusts banks). But does Media Watch trust its own viewers? Possibly not, otherwise the program might have shown more than just the headline and first paragraph from the
Evening Telegraph’s article. Here’s the entire piece, forwarded by the paper, which stands by its story:

Piggy banks are being removed from promotional displays in Blackburn town centre banks — in case they cause offence to Muslim customers.

The entire article from the Evening Telegraph can be found at the above URL.