Bullets Dipped in Pig's blood Will Deny Them Entry to Heaven

Misfit-
By all means I would love to hear others oopinions on how it follows a priori that because I have not needed anyone to kill for me, it automatically means I have needed people killed, or should have cause for alarm for saying so. Especially when it was followed by the statement "I can defend myself".

Do not mean to get off topic, but since it doesn't matter as the topic is hogwash anyways please enlighten me.

[edited to delete bothersome quote]

[edit on 13-7-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]

Originally posted by skippytjc
I understand them completely. They are radical fundamentalists that understand nothing but violence and death. They believe that anybody that doesn’t share their beliefs must die, why? Because the Koran tells them that. I know, because I have read it, the entire book.

What you understand is your own opinion of Muslims and how they operate.

Originally posted by skippytjc
And you are the one with no clue, you are the one that has no idea. You can only combat radical fundamentalists with radical tactics, period. What do you suggest? Group hugs?

Dipping bullets in pigs blood is not a radical tactic it's a dumbass idea. If you're going to do it - do it, but don't advertise because it won't do anything to hinder a cause only strengthen one. Since you are so knowledgeable in the Quran and Muslims you should know this, right?

Originally posted by skippytjc
Kill them. Kill them all in the most violent ways possible. Video tape them being killed and show it to the world (they do this too). Execute every last one of them. Why? Because they will never stop attacking us and they will never go away, their entire system of belief is based on killing the infidels. The very book they warship states that all non believers must die, must have their throats slit.

Thank God you have nothing to do with anything but your opinions. This isn't apocalypse now. Fictions may work in your fantasy world but not in real life.

Originally posted by skippytjc
But its me I guess who doesn’t understand...I must not read the words correctly, .

You're correct you don't.

Originally posted by skippytjc
These terrorists will never stop, because the very book that drives their sole belief tells them to kill all the non believers. Its you my friend, who doesn’t get it..

I lived amongst a diverse culture of Muslims for many years, and you're not among my friends. The Quran is one book of many and is not what drives Islam. All knowledgeable Quran reader, you should know this - but instead, you dont know jack#e. You have an opinion like everyone else, but that's all you got, along with a belief in dumbass suggestions.

Any so called solution anyone provides won't mean a damn thing. Are you the Secretary of Defense, the Chief of Staff maybe? The military is doing what they believe to be a viable option and it doesn't include dipping bullets in pigs blood or making sausage bombs, why, lol, because it's plain asinine for one and furthers the cause of rebellion.

Wow, that was a good read. to all!

Urban myth or not, religion or not, believe or not.

What are we really talking about here?

Dipping bullets in pigs blood?

Bullets that would be otherwise used for what?

How would anyone ever really know if the bullet has been dipped in pig's blood?

Does it even matter?

Just an idea that has caused this much debate. I do not believe this was ever going to even come close to being used as any form of official policy. What could it hurt? NOTHING!

It would change nothing, unless you are on the other end of the gun, and have such strong faith, that you believe the bullet about to kill you may or may not be dipped in pigs blood, and could deny you entry into heaven.

By the way, the California National Guard which had the flier up that suggested this be done has now taken it down.



ESP

[edit on 13-7-2005 by EvilSockPuppet]

Can we safely assume that the bright spark who thought up the idea then went forward and actually had a poster created and put up, has now been removed from there position?

I did a search for "Pigs Blood" on their site, and as expected got a null return.

Califorinia National Guard

Another interesting story re: the CNG, California National Guard Caught Spying on Women's Peace Groups

Laughable......

I have browsed through this thread, and I find it interestingly enough even with some veterans, a bit racist and offensive.

Gentlemen. Keep in mind that some of the people that are fighting are doing so because they feel their cause is just.

The orignal post on this was about a poster that was deemed offensive. And considering that America is a melting pot of cultures and people, lets us not offend our fellow bretheren in posting something insulting to their faith.

I am not condoning terrorism, or otherwise, but I am saying be respective to Muslims. How about Palestinians shooting non Kosher ketchup dipped bullets at Israelis? Isnt funny now is it.

This thread has gotten a bit out of hand.....

Peace

[edit on 18-7-2005 by HIFIGUY]

posted by HIFIGUY:
This thread has gotten a bit out of hand.....

Cannot agree more. I can not even believe there are people here who support this pigblood idea (which is plain stupid, offensive, racist,etc. and probably was thought by somebody with 2-digit IQ). You should all understand that ideas like that combined with abuses of prisoners against the signed by US Geneva convention, are among the major reasons for the US international image to be at all time low.

Btw, I was just reading a thread announcing a member was banned for expressing National Socialistic/Nazi views. If the policy is the same for everybody, I believe everyone who expresses racial comments (or supports such views) against muslims, Arabs, etc, should also be banned. Let's all have a level playing field.

Peace

Dude was banned for pimping revisionist history, providing false information.

That aside, I agree with you 100%.

There are a handful of members on this board who really think 100 nukes in the Sunni triangle will solve our problems. I think the board would be better off without them.

Then again, I think patriotism should be a criminal offense punishable by a week in the stocks. People have forgotten than patriotism is a bad thing, it used to be looked down upon, scorned and ridiculed. The original meaning has been lost to..you guessed it..revisionist history.

But in a nutshell I agree that this board should not tolerate hateful anti-muslim rhetoric. Generally, this board doesn't. I've seen action taken on several occasions, warnings were issued, and the posters responsible thought twice the next time they felt like letting rip with their signature spew.

Life goes on I guess, and some people never change.

Posted by WyrdeOne:
Then again, I think patriotism should be a criminal offense punishable by a week in the stocks. People have forgotten than patriotism is a bad thing, it used to be looked down upon, scorned and ridiculed. The original meaning has been lost to..you guessed it..revisionist history.

This is my view as well...

...when Tao is lost...when a country falls into chaos, patriotism is born -- Tao Te Jing

Here is some more wisdom from the book of Lao Tzu:

For governing a country well,
there is nothing better than moderation.
The mark of a moderate man
Is freedom from his own ideas.

When a country obtains great power,
it becomes like the sea:
all streams run downward into it.
The more powerful it grows,
the greater the need for humility.

Too bad our great leaders of today are not into philosophy...

Hey i done my time in Both Gulf wars the first i was only 18 years of age and for those that know me will know i have only returned from there after spending some time in close protection. It does not make us Anti muslim or rascist. Its just our job doing what we believe is right not for the people of our home country but for the children and frightened families of the country we are fighting in. Thats what it is all about defending life whether they be black or white or brown or yellow they are all human.

Malkut
Yes indeed..it truly is a shame that politicians are professional liars instead of professional thinkers.

TheSaint
We have to kill Iraqis, or else they'll die? That's what I understood from your post.

Originally posted by AceOfBase
Also, is coming in contact with pigs blood going to deny them entrance into heaven any more than eating meat on a Friday or masturbating might deny a Catholic entry?

That would've been an interesting tactic in the hundred years war. Actually it probably would've been the Thousand Years war.

Originally posted by AceOfBase
Also, is coming in contact with pigs blood going to deny them entrance into heaven any more than eating meat on a Friday or masturbating might deny a Catholic entry?

Yeah, the mentality behind this is the same kind of cromag thinking that raping a woman makes her a slut. It's just stupid. Religion protects itself always. It doesn't go Oh noes! You've bested me! It'll drop it's own dogma in a red hot minute when it suits it. This is no more a bright idea than nuking mecca. Or Al Quaeda blowing up statues of Buddha. Or Christians gassing Jews, burning "heresy" and purifying by pain. Just stupid.

Uh, Rant, Christians have never gassed Jews.
That doesn't even make sense, as our Boss was a Jewish carpenter.
Think about it!!!

By the way, wouldn't the blood burn off the bullet in the first second?

The Major enjoys a good side of bacon or sausage, but would never consider "lubing" my ammo in order to increase their "effectiveness."

I do believe the French used their culinary arts to suppress the German onslaught, but that was a different context.

Dismissed.

OMG @ this
Are these people actually serious ? I am so glad this was brought back up cause I needed a good laugh

pig's flesh being consumed is what is frowned upon, I highly doubt Mohammed Al-Suicide Bomber gives a rat's ass about some pig blood on a bullet.


idiots :shk: smh

[edit on 24-11-2005 by ImJaded]

As far as

Originally posted by ImJaded
: I highly doubt Mohammed Al-Suicide Bomber gives a rat's ass about some pig blood on a bullet.

Thats why there is a " Mohammed Al-Suicide Bomber "...because they are fighting for a cause..and you are fighting just because.

And as far as the pigs blood goes...

It had been told to me..that in India..fighting Muslims in small towns was solved easily by setting the place on fire..as Muslims apparently believe that being burned in fire does not allow them to enter Heaven...

It really doesnt matter...whether the pigs blood is true or not.

If your purposly doing it to purposly violate them and their faith and their God..which happens to be our God...Sad..

As far as being in Iraq to protect Iraq...dont even get me started.

As you can see...the largest super power in the world still cant stop the bleeding we sought to stop...

We dabbled in matters that were not our own...and now we are paying the price.

Peace


[edit on 30-12-2006 by HIFIGUY]

ThomasCrowne

Uh, Rant, Christians have never gassed Jews.
That doesn't even make sense, as our Boss was a Jewish carpenter.
Think about it!!!

Hitler was an altar boy, he went to school in a monastery, and grew up to become an 'annointed soldier of God' - his movement was sanctioned by the HRCC when they failed to excommunicate him, and he often spoke of Christianity and Jesus - he wanted the Christians as allies against the Jews.

I think this site makes a great case:

www.straightdope.com...

In a speech delivered April 12, 1922, published in "My New Order," and quoted in Freethought Today (April 1990), Hitler said:

My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.

In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison.

Make no mistake, while Hitler was most certainly not a good Christian, he was definitely raised Christian, and he recycled a lot of the rhetoric for his own purposes. Anyway, here's one more relevant morsel from that site (it's a good read, I think anyone interested a balanced look at the question 'was Hitler a Christian' should check it out - they cover the other side too, but less convincingly IMO).

In a speech at Koblenz, August 26, 1934, Hitler said: "National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary it stands on the ground of a real Christianity . . . For their interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of today, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life . . . These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles!"

Men who were self-described Christians gassed the Jews (and a lot of other folks too, homosexuals, gypsies, blacks, etc.), make no mistake about it. Were they real Christians? Of course not (IMO), but we could argue all day about what, exactly, a real Christian is or is not.

The point is, he was raised Christian, many of his soldiers were Christian, he used Christianity to gain support, and the church did not stand up to him (because, face facts, by the time the Nazis rose to power, the church had been persecuting Jews for close to two MILLENIA - that's two thousand years). Hitler was a rookie anti-semite. by any estimation.

Hell, even the yellow badge that Jews were made to wear had its roots in Christianity (more than 700 years before the Nazis), read this and learn.

en.wikipedia.org...

Canon 68. Jews and Muslims shall wear a special dress to enable them to be distinguished from Christians (see Judenhut, yellow badge). This is partly so that Christians will not unknowingly have sexual relations with Jews or Muslims. The latter are not to go outdoors during four days of Easter week

He was a devious, lying, murderous bastard, and there's no question in my mind that he played Christians for fools when he got them to go along with his crazy plan - and I have no doubt he would have smashed the Christians and their institutions in an instant if he thought he had the ability to do so, but he drew inspiration from their own prejudices, and used them as a means of control.

Anyway, my intent is not to bash Christians, because there were surely many who objected to his deeds. There were even officials in the church heirarchy who thought he should be faced down and who thought the church should take a tougher stance against Nazism (seeing as it was a threat to ALL other religions, it being a mutually exclusive religion itself).

My intent is only to shoot down the statement - Christians never gassed Jews, and the notion Thomas seems to hold that Christians would never hurt a Jew because of their prophet's ancestry. That's simply not so.

(Thomas hasn't been around in a while, and I doubt he'll read my reply if he ever does come back, but I saw this thread had re-surfaced, read what he said, and felt I had to reply to that blatant attempt at whitewashing history.)



[edit on 31-12-2006 by WyrdeOne]

Addressing the Topic:

Novel Idea, but not for execution.

See, the main martyrdom missions are carried out by radicals bent on their ideaology.

Pigs should flock the streets of Baghdad though, so that any explosion will blow up pigs and cause their blood to be on the martyr suicide bomber as well as civilians. Knowing that they cannot set off their suicide bomb because pig blood will mix into their own remains as it all sprays about in a flying mess during the blast, denying them to heaven.

Funny, civilians that are innocent wont stop the terrorists, but innocent pigs will make them think twice about conducting their brutal attacks!

Maybe they have more in common with PETA and should join alliances?

Addressing WyrdeOne in Regard to Religous Discrimination:

If you think that decree you linked to regarding making muslims and jews wear a certain dress is bad, Islam still trumps Catholicism and Christianity in the religous persecution department.. and always have since Islam was founded.

I call into evidence the Pact of Umar[Omar]:

en.wikipedia.org...

Umar was the 2nd Caliph, of the 1st 4 "rightly guided" Caliphs, before Islam broke into the sects of Shia and Sunni.

His pact pertains to the rules place over conquered lands during the great muslim expansion which went in all directions between 650ad-750ad and into the medieval period. They are extremely discriminatory to the point it's laughable. The obvious intent of the pact is to remove all non-muslim yet monotheistic religons from their 'newly' conquered lands, and to make non-muslim monotheists second class citizens and subject to all kinds of discrimination. To this day these beliefs are widely upheld, and the Ottoman Turks were using them not too long ago, World War I.

ARTICLES OF THE PACT OF UMAR

We Christians:

1 - We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries,
2 - churches,
3 - convents,
4 - or monks' cells,
5 - nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins
6 - or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims. . . .
7- We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy,
8 - nor hide him from the Muslims. We shall not teach the Quran to our children.
9 - We shall not manifest our religion publicly
10 - nor convert anyone to it.
11 - We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.
12 - We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and
13 - we shall rise from our seats if they wish to sit.
14 - We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the headgear, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair.
15 - We shall not speak as they do,
16 - nor shall we adopt their honorific names.
17 - We shall not mount on saddles,
18- nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our persons.
19 - We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.
20 - We shall not sell fermented drinks. (i.e. Alcohol)
21 - We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims.
22 - We shall only use clappers in our churches very softly.
23 - We shall not raise our voices in our church services or in the presence of Muslims,
24 - nor shall we raise our voices when following our dead.
25 - We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets.
26 - We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.
27 - We shall not take slave who have been allotted to the Muslims.
28 - We shall not build houses over-topping the houses of the Muslims.

To this very day, these laws are held as genuine doctrine of Islam by the radical elements of Islam, the Jihadists, conservatives, and those trying to build Islamic Caliphates and such. Some things that are mentioned in the pact of umar but not in the numbered list include:

You shall never strike a muslim, if you do you can be killed.
You must wear a specfic type of outfit.
You have to pay a tax for not being muslim called Jizyah.
If you are not Christian or Jew, but rather an unbeliever or Pagan, you are not offered any of these "rights", you are beheaded immediately upon the conquering of your place of dwelling.

If Al-Qaeda created a revolution that ends in world wide Islam domination (the ultimate goal of Islam as written in the Qu'ran) then these are the rules that Europeans and Americans, not to mention other nationals would have to live or die by. Pretty fun stuff huh?

[edit on 12/31/2006 by runetang]

Well, it was not my intent to engage anyone in a discussion about which religion is most intolerant, but if that's what you want, we can go there too.

My intent was, as I said, simply to disprove the statement made by Thomas earlier.

Anyway, if you think Islam is bad by historical standards, you are very mistaken. While their customs are definitely not in line with modern ideas about equality, they were very progressive at the time, and gave outsiders more rights than almost all the European states.

Islam guaranteed the right to life for the 'people of the book' (Jews and Christians). The Jews had no such right in Europe. Dhimmi status is cruel compared to modern institutions, but compared to the treatment Jews were used to in Europe, Dhimmi status was incredibly welcoming and a nice change of pace from all the torture and burning and expulsions they had suffered for so long.

Islam also guaranteed the right to property for the Dhimma, another right that was not in place in Europe - in old Europe, Christians were allowed to take the property of Jews with no recourse. How many times did the kings, princes, and church authorities of Europe steal Jewish property? Countless times. How many times did Islam do this? None to my knowledge.

I'll say it again, if you want to compare traditional Islam with modern values - they are quite obviously lacking, but if you want to compare traditional Islam with traditional Christianity, you'll see the former offered more rights, less persecution, and was generally more welcoming to Jewish people.

Why do you think Jews fled Europe for the Middle East? Because the crusaders didn't care how tall their houses were, or whether they were praying loudly, they were interested in one thing and one thing only - genocide; the complete and utter extermination of Jews wherever they were found. Jews were expelled from Europe on multiple occasions by force, thrown out or tortured and killed simply for being Jewish.

There were a few places in medieval Europe where they were more or less accepted and free to live and worship as they chose, but those safe havens were few and far between.

Muslims saw Jews as fellows (second-class citizens yes, but citizens nonetheless, brothers in submission before God, not slaves to the state), whereas Christians saw Jews as the devil incarnate. Big difference.

You think Muslims were more intolerant than medieval Christians? Under Islam, Jews had rights - you can't say the same for Medieval Europe, where Jews and non-Christians in general had NO RIGHTS! Islam guaranteed that Jews had protection from violence and theft, they were allowed to worship in their own way (with exceptions intended to stop them from converting others), they were alowed to pursue the vocation of their choice, and they were allowed to appoint their own community leaders.

If you want to continue this argument, I'd be happy to do so, but there's not much point to it, really. Saying medieval Europe was tolerant of Jews is like claiming the sky is neon green.

Once again, Dhimmi status is not in line with modern ideas of equality, but at the time it was the equivalent of the emancipation proclamation - it was a huge leap forward as far as the Jews were concerned. If I was a Jew living in medieval times, I would most certainly prefer Dhimmi status over being robbed, tortured, chased around the sub-continent, before finally being burned alive in a giant pit with the rest of my community.



[edit on 31-12-2006 by WyrdeOne]

Rubbing your rounds with spam works to.