Demand Koran Replace U.S. Constitution

[Mycroft]

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?

No, I can't think of anything.

I guess if we went back 85 years or so, it could be reminiscent of WWI mustard gas attacks, but the point here is that pork fumes are non-lethal, so that alone is a major difference.

Could you stop fooling around and just say what you’re hinting at?

 

[CFLarsen]

No, I can't think of anything.

I guess if we went back 85 years or so, it could be reminiscent of WWI mustard gas attacks, but the point here is that pork fumes are non-lethal, so that alone is a major difference.

Could you stop fooling around and just say what you’re hinting at?

Let me help your memory along...

 

[Mycroft]

Let me help your memory along...

I don't see any particular similarity to the Holocaust, unless you think writing a paragraph that uses both the words “gas” and “Jew” is enough to create such a parallel.

If SG were proposing to round up Muslims and put them to work in slave labor camps on starvation diets, then there certainly would be a parallel, but under such circumstances it would be nonsensical to “gas” them with non-lethal powdered pork rinds. What would that accomplish?

Clearly SG is describing a battlefield weapon more along the lines of mustard gas used in WWI, only non-lethal.

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't see any particular similarity to the Holocaust, unless you think writing a paragraph that uses both the words “gas” and “Jew” is enough to create such a parallel.

If SG were proposing to round up Muslims and put them to work in slave labor camps on starvation diets, then there certainly would be a parallel, but under such circumstances it would be nonsensical to “gas” them with non-lethal powdered pork rinds. What would that accomplish?

Clearly SG is describing a battlefield weapon more along the lines of mustard gas used in WWI, only non-lethal.

I don't know if it is misplaced bravado or sheer ignorance to suggest gassing Muslims with pork fumes while Jews are protected with gas masks, but none of the options are all that appealing.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Let me help your memory along...

You seriously see a parallel between the Nazi's use of ZyklonB and what I am suggetsing?

Here's a few salient differences:

1. Pork is not fatal, at least not in the way I am suggesting it be used. It could clog your arteries after 30 or 40 years of eating the fattier cuts, however.

2. ZyklonB, not pork, was used during the holocaust to gas Jewish civilians --- men, women and children. It is fatal.

Having been in the kitchen during the preparation and cooking of prok, and bacon, I can assure you inhaling it even is not fatal.

http://www.spectacle.org/695/zyklonb.html

3. I am suggesting the humiliating (psyops) weapon be used on muslim combatants, not on prisoners, not on civilian moslems and certainly not on
women and children. But happily if a few get doused with the stuff they will not die and will continue to live. Combatants, on the other hand, risk dying without dispensation or purification and this is designed to act as a deterrent.

4. Pork administered in the manner I described can not be inhaled by the use of an inexpensive duck-bill mask made by Kimberly-Clark, 3M and others that in large quantities sell for less than a dollar or so.

I am astounded that you continue to draw your silly parallels between what is being suggested here and what the Nazi's did to the Jews in the holocaust. There is absolutely no comparison.

5. You continue also to fail to draw a distinction between cutting off heads of kidnapped non-combatants or blowing up innocents by IEDs with the use of a psops weapons that may humiliate combatants.

6. I think the Israeli military should not only supply 3M duck bills to their own forces, and civilians but drop them by the tens of thousands on Lebanon for use by civilians and Hezbollah so they can protect themselves from inhaling the pork weapon.
This should be accompanied by complete instrictions in arabic, french and english
advising those on the ground to expect a pork based assault plus how to use the mask to prevent the pork aerosol from being inhaled.

I think a nice military bag pipe tune should be broadcast to herald the imminent deployment of the pork weapon so no one is caught with their 3M duckbill down.

 

[SteveGrenard]

The following product according to someone I spoke to knowledgeable about paintball technology should work very nicely in these devices:

http://www.adclassix.com/ads/55campbellspb1.htm

 

[CFLarsen]

You can make all the feeble excuses you like, Steve. Your method is even worse than what the terrorist do: You should know better, but you choose to be even more cruel than them.

It's juvenile. It's barbaric. It's pure evil. And it will do nothing but immense harm to the fight against the terrorists.

 

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

• 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?
  
• How do you know that "all the muslims in Sweden would be in favor of the demands to islamicize the country"?
  
• Are the Danish Democratic Muslims demanding to islamicize Denmark?
  
• Are there any other groups that you want silenced? Skeptics, Muslims...who else?

 

[SteveGrenard]

duplicate

 

[SteveGrenard]

Larsen: Just who are you to decide what Muslims will agree to?

reply-What they agree to is a matter of record in news reports, such as this today:

Al-Qaida's No. 2 leader issued a worldwide call in a new videotape released Thursday for Muslims to rise up in a holy war against Israel and join the fighting in Lebanon and Gaza until Islam reigns from "Spain to Iraq."

In the message broadcast by Al-Jazeera television, Ayman al-Zawahri, second in command to Osama bin Laden, said that al-Qaida now views "all the world as a battlefield open in front of us."

The Egyptian-born physician said that the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah and Palestinian militants would not be ended with "cease-fires or agreements."

"It is a Jihad for the sake of God and will last until (our) religion prevails ... from Spain to Iraq," al-Zawahri said. "We will attack everywhere." Spain was controlled by Arab Muslims until they were driven from power at the turn of the 16th century.

from the Associated Press Via Forbes, more at:

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/07/27/ap2908496.html

I assume this is a call to islamicize all the world between Spain and Gibraltar at the Atlantic and everything in between until one reaches Iraq. At the very least Spain, France, Italy, Greece, Cyprus, parts of Turkey ....and if extending further North that corridor includes Europe as well.


Larsen: 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?

reply-searching for this reveals there are regular press stories on these kinds of psy-ops issues already.

Larsen: How do you know that "all the musls in Sweden would be in favor of the demands to islamicize the country"?

reply-because observation of this community indicates a lemming mentality

Larsen: Are the Danish Democratic Muslims demanding to islamicize Denmark?

I didn't say they were and don't know. You are in a better position to answer this yourself.

Larsen: Are there any other groups that you want silenced? Skeptics, Muslims...who else?

reply: I prefer nobody to be silenced. The more the enemy blabs the better information on which to act. The last thing one would want is to silence an enemy. Please show me where I called for the enemy to be silenced? Be specific.

On the issue of skeptics which you include in your diatribe do you know any skeptics who commit atrocities such as kidnapping and decapitation?

Do you know any skeptics whose religion tells them to cut off the hands of thieves? Do you know skeptics who execute their children for getting married without permission? Or stone women who allow their ankles to be exposed? Do you know any skeptics who launch rocket attacks on civilian targets? Do you know any skeptics who devise and plant IEDs? Do you know any skeptics who strap dynamite to themselves and then walk into holiday parties and weddings, coffee shops, supermarkets and get on buses and then blow themselves up? Do you know any skeptics who want to wipe a soveiegn nation off the map? Do you know any skeptics who deny the holocaust ever ocurred? If you do know such skeptics let me know so we can figure out how to humilate and denigrate them.

 

[HarryKeogh]

You can make all the feeble excuses you like, Steve. Your method is even worse than what the terrorist do: You should know better, but you choose to be even more cruel than them.

While I certainly think Steve's proposals are silly, offensive and ineffective I would hardly call them more cruel than using a knife to saw someone's head off while they're still alive or crashing a plane full of people into a building full of people or blowing up a train of people going to work or kidnapping and shooting an older woman who was doing humanitarian work in Iraq.

Hell, Steve's ideas aren't even in the same ballpark. Of course that's a matter of opinion.

Devil's advocate mode: is everyone who thinks launching pork products at Muslims because it would offend so many of them also upset by the publishing of those Danish cartoons a few months ago?

 

[SteveGrenard]

You can make all the feeble excuses you like, Steve. Your method is even worse than what the terrorist do: You should know better, but you choose to be even more cruel than them.

It's juvenile. It's barbaric. It's pure evil. And it will do nothing but immense harm to the fight against the terrorists.

Yes attacking a combatant with Campbell's Pork and Beans is definitely barbaric. It is worse than decapitation and much much worse than planting IEDs or suicide bombing.

 

[CFLarsen]

What they agree to is a matter of record in news reports, such as this today:

from the Associated Press Via Forbes, more at:

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/07/27/ap2908496.html

I assume this is a call to islamicize all the world between Spain and Gibraltar at the Atlantic and everything in between until one reaches Iraq. At the very least Spain, France, Italy, Greece, Cyprus, parts of Turkey ....and if extending further North that corridor includes Europe as well.

If you want to state that it is a matter of record what Muslims agree to, then you cannot assume. Either it is on record, or you assume.

Nowhere in that link does it say anything about what all Muslims will agree to. Ergo, you assume. And, as evidenced, you are wrong.

reply-searching for this reveals there are regular press stories on these kinds of psy-ops issues already.

Please 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?

because observation of this community indicates a lemming mentality'

Then, you are assuming again, and wrongly:

A Swedish radical Muslim, Al-Ansar Sharia, encourages holy war on moderate muslims in Sweden. One of the targeted is the Vice President of the Swedish Muslim Council, Mahmoud al-Debe, because he is cooperating with the Swedish secret police to map the activities of extremist muslims in Sweden.

So, you are demonstrably wrong when you said that the total number of Muslims supported extremist views.

Do you understand, Steve? You are wrong.

I didn't say they were and don't know. You are in a better position to answer this yourself.

Clearly, they are not demanding to islamicize Denmark. Denmark is not "next".

I prefer nobody to be silenced. The more the enemy blabs the better information on which to act. The last thing one would want is to silence an enemy. Please show me where I called for the enemy to be silenced? Be specific.

On the issue of skeptics which you include in your diatribe do you know any skeptics who commit atrocities such as kidnapping and decapitation?

Do you know any skeptics whose religion tells them to cut off the hands of thieves? Do you know skeptics who execute their children for getting married without permission? Or stone women who allow their ankles to be exposed? Do you know any skeptics who launch rocket attacks on civilian targets? Do you know any skeptics who devise and plant IEDs? Do you know any skeptics who strap dynamite to themselves and then walk into holiday parties and weddings, coffee shops, supermarkets and get on buses and then blow themselves up? Do you know any skeptics who want to wipe a soveiegn nation off the map? Do you know any skeptics who deny the holocaust ever ocurred? If you do know such skeptics let me know so we can figure out how to humilate and denigrate them.

Your actions belie your words, Steve.

Skeptics have not only questioned your belief in the afterlife, but also shown how wrong you are. As a result, you have embarked on a campaign that, by now, spans many activities to silence and discredit skeptics: An anonymous smear campaign against JREF with the purpose of banning JREF (not just this forum, but the JREF site itself) from schools and libraries - not just because of the skeptical activities, but also because Randi is an atheist. A smear campaign against me (including threatening me with a lawsuit, and insinuating that I moved from New York to Denmark because of laxer pedophilia laws). A smear campaign against CSICOP (by claiming that CSICOP supported, justified and glorified pedophilia).

You want me to continue, Steve? There's plenty more. If you want to go through all that again, I'm right here. With all the evidence.

 

[Mycroft]

I don't know if it is misplaced bravado or sheer ignorance to suggest gassing Muslims with pork fumes while Jews are protected with gas masks, but none of the options are all that appealing.

I still don't see what your problem is. Are you still claiming there is a Holocaust parallel?

 

[Mycroft]

You can make all the feeble excuses you like, Steve. Your method is even worse than what the terrorist do: You should know better, but you choose to be even more cruel than them.

It's juvenile. It's barbaric. It's pure evil. And it will do nothing but immense harm to the fight against the terrorists.

Pure evil?

Steve,

• Just who are you to decide what Muslims will agree to?

• 
  
  By the same token, who are you to claim otherwise?
  
  

  [*]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?

  
  Why would that be wise?
  
  

  [*]How do you know that "all the muslims in Sweden would be in favor of the demands to islamicize the country"?

  
  Isn't the salient point there that many of them are?
  
  

  [*]Are the Danish Democratic Muslims demanding to islamicize Denmark?

  
  Doesn't everyone who attempts to change their environment want to change it more to their liking?
  
  

  [*]Are there any other groups that you want silenced? Skeptics, Muslims...who else?

I see no evidence Steve wants to silence Skeptics.

 

[Darat]

While I certainly think Steve's proposals are silly, offensive and ineffective I would hardly call them more cruel than using a knife to saw someone's head off while they're still alive or crashing a plane full of people into a building full of people or blowing up a train of people going to work or kidnapping and shooting an older woman who was doing humanitarian work in Iraq.

Hell, Steve's ideas aren't even in the same ballpark. Of course that's a matter of opinion.

I don't think anyone is arguing that they are?

Devil's advocate mode: is everyone who thinks launching pork products at Muslims because it would offend so many of them also upset by the publishing of those Danish cartoons a few months ago?

I think there is only Claus arguing that we shouldn't do it because it would be "offensive" - but I've not really read Claus's point as it being because it is offensive as such but that it would lose us the moral high-ground and the consequences of doing such acts would actually be worse for us even if it did win a battle.

Now I have to say the moral high-ground I'm not too bothered about since as far as I am concerned if such a weapon/deterrent stopped people being killed and injured then I think that is better, sometimes the ends do justify the means as far as I am concerned.

As for the consequences I think that is something we should consider but I don't think there is any objective way of determining what those consequences are so we end up on it being a matter of opinion.

My objection to the idea of pork weapons of mass damnation is based on the fact that the idea is just plain silly.

 

[gumboot]

Not wanting to brown-nose the moderators...



But on this particular topic I think I'm pretty much in 100% agreement with Darat.

However, I could see the gassing of Muslims with pork fumes as making an EXCELLENT Monty Python skit, were they still in operation.

(Ending it of course with the RSM coming in and going "Right, that's enough of that. It started off as a nice little skit about pork gas, but now it's just silly.")

-Andrew

 

[CFLarsen]

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):

I grant you that the Danish press took a courageous stand in publishing the mohammad cartoons and stood behind them, thus incurring the wrath of these same extremist whackos who are very dangerous people. However, the Danish press and their cartoonists have nowhere near paid the price Americans have in blood and money for these people who when they are not killing us are content to kill each other in tribal warfare (e.g. civil war). I never said you agreed with the extremist whackos, so please show me where I did so. I said I was surprised you didn't believe just by shunting Rahman off to Italy that he was safe. The bigger issue also is not just about him, but about the fact that his case even ever happened. Ditto for the Danish cartoons. What civilized human beings would ever threaten people with death for changing their religion or publishing a cartoon? These people are beyond redemption and it seemed like you thought that releasing Rahman and sending him into exile solved the problem. Here's a tip for you: it didn't.

I honestly don't feel I said anything to you to apolgize for but if you retract your statement that my opinion of Rahman's situation was a morbid fantasy, I will apologize to you. I have worked in the region, I have discussed this face to face with many Moslem friends and colleagues, I watched (& cried) when the Saudi government chopped off the head of a young princess for marrying a man without her father's approval. You know what they do with the head don't you? Thus I have no fantasies about these people. We need to dissolve our co-dependence with them (e.g. oil). move on and leave them to their own devices.

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

What we have here is the distributor, according to Flynn and Flynn only, stating that Indigo blocked the issue and refused to sell it. Flynbn may have been speculating again or the distributor may've told him what they did by shifting the blame to Indigo. We have Indigo saying whatever caused this was done by accident. "Lost" is but one option, Indigo clearly stated they were not received. Being done deliberately was another possibility I gave. Obviously there could be a myriad of reasons for this but only the editor of Free Inquiry is allowed to speculate. Right?

Mr. Flynn clearly speculated that the Singer article may be the reason and yet clearly there is nothing objectionnable in the Singer article. In fact it supports Indigo's blocking of Harpers and another magazine which published the Danish cartoons. I conceded that Indigo may have placedFI on their watchlist because they published the Danish cartoons without advising anyone they were doing so. Ironically Flynn, who must have read Singer's article well before he published the cartoons, recklessly disregarded Singer's comment that publishing or distributing these stupid cartoons are not worth the lives they cost. This was irresponsible of Flynn and FI and apparently neither you nor Larsen understand that. I also can't criticize Mrs. Resiman, Head of Indigo, for refusing to sell Adolph Hitler's maniaical hate-filled manifesto (Mein Kampf) as well. There is a moral limit to the concept of free speech, Singer knows that and I agree with him. And after being burned by FI's publication of the Danish cartoons I can't blame them for being cautious about this magazine and demanding to know what surprises subsequent issues will contain.

Thankfully nobody was harmed but if it were otherwise, Indigo acting with an abundance of proverbial caution would not be a reason today to castigate them.


You make light of something as serious as the major sticking point in this issue onlydemonstrates your failure to appreciate that people died because of this stupid Danish cartoons.
You seem to be tyring to deny that FI published these cartoons in the previous issue, you seem to forget that for sound reasons Indigo DID block Harpers and the Weekly Standard for publishing them as well. I posted the relevant excerpts from the blogs which confirm this so I guess crazy pills must be the reason you can't see the loss of life and property these cartoons cause(d).

Hypocrisy or opportunism? You decide.

 

[CFLarsen]

I still don't see what your problem is. Are you still claiming there is a Holocaust parallel?

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

Pure evil?

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

By the same token, who are you to claim otherwise?

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

Why would that be wise?

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?

Isn't the salient point there that many of them are?

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

Doesn't everyone who attempts to change their environment want to change it more to their liking?

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.

I see no evidence Steve wants to silence Skeptics.

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

I think there is only Claus arguing that we shouldn't do it because it would be "offensive" - but I've not really read Claus's point as it being because it is offensive as such but that it would lose us the moral high-ground and the consequences of doing such acts would actually be worse for us even if it did win a battle.

Precisely.

 

[HarryKeogh]

I don't think anyone is arguing that they are?

I thought when Claus said this he was:

You can make all the feeble excuses you like, Steve. Your method is even worse than what the terrorist do: You should know better, but you choose to be even more cruel than them.

If not then what was he talking about when he said "what the terrorist do"...which method of terrorism isn't as cruel as using pork products against someone? They terrorize and kill people; civilians and military.

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