Originally Posted by SteveGrenard :
Force feeding someone is not a practical weapon of deterrence in warfare so no would be the answer.
CFL: If you caught a Christian terrorist, and he had information about an upcoming attack, and it was Lent, would you use force feeding as a weapon?
Reply: I would threaten him with it. Some elements of the IRA were/are certainly Christian terrorists, Catholic terrorists to be specific. They were force fed in prison in England during hunger strikes so there is some precedence for that. However, as I recall there was nothing that the British could use against them in the way of supersititon.
Originally Posted by SteveGrenard :
Some other non-lethal supersititon would need to be developed as a non-lethal weapon.
CFL: If you could find such a weapon, would you use it against Christians? Yes or no?
Reply: Against Christian terrorists such as the IRA. Yes if it were my job to do so. Certainly preferable to harming them physically or killing them.
CFL: What would such a weapon be?
Don’t know
Originally Posted by SteveGrenard :
The families of muslims tarred by weapons grade finely milled pork rind powder should be grateful their loved ones are alive, can be purified, and when they do die from natural causes will get their reward as promised in the koran.
CFL: How would that deter the Muslim terrorists?? They are also alive, can be purified and die from natural causes.
Reply: Because if they were engaged in battle and thought they might die after being tarred with pork powder, they would stop risking their lives under that circumstance. They realize that if they were dead they will not know if they were purified or received dispensation or not. Is the risk worth taking?
Originally Posted by SteveGrenard :
Upholding the higher standard of the ten commandments which you love to cite, I could care less if they are offended since I would not be killing. There are some sins which are not so serious, and others which are. Among the mortal sins, the ones for which you would be punished and go to hell for is killing. Therefore I will not be forced in the position of needing to commit the mortal sin of killing in order to spare someone the indignity of being doused with weapons grade pork rind powder.
CFL: Steve, you claim to be an Atheist, yet you speak of "mortal sin"?
Reply: I speak of it in the hypothetical sense. Secular humanists and atheists are opposed to killing but don’t characterize it as a mortal sin. It is the ultimate offense you can commit, even for atheists, so should be avoided. I called it a mortal sin since in the eyes of a religionist it is irreversible and worthy of eternal damnation and condemnation. Any good follower of the ten+ commandments should know this. Atheists can agree with some of the commandments by the way and not with others.
Originally Posted by SteveGrenard :
The bigger question is whether it will be a deterrent or not and so far here there are arguments that it may not be. Hence the pork rinds would have to be tested somehow.
CFL: How do you suggest that? Polls? You really think that will go down well with Muslims and non-Muslims alike?
Reply: It needs to be tested. If not by polls by actual trials. It is non-lethal and not very difficult to incorporate into battle plans. Remember also that once it is leaked to the enemy that weapons grade pork rind is being used it is projected that this will act as a deterrent. It was suggested in Israel that the populace be armed with water guns containing a solution of bacon grease and water to be shot at would be terrorists.
