How to end the war on terror tomorrow ?

Last night I was listening to Coast to Coast and Art Bell was doing his yearly prediction show . One caller predicted that in the very near future a Western solder would kill and bury a " terrorist " in the skin of a pig .

The caller made the prediction that this act would catch on and given how the Islamic world would view this act and there beliefs that this act would prevent them from entering into heaven that the war in Afghanistan would come to a speedy end .

Would this work ? Or would this just pi$$ the world off to no end ?

reply to post by Max_TO


This is based on the urban legend of General John J. Pershing doing this in the Phillipines during the Moro Rebellion.

www.snopes.com...

The Snopes page covers things pretty well, but it's important to remember that the Islamic doctrine regarding pigs doesn't work that way. A person should avoid contact with pigs (and dogs, and other unclean critters) but if doe some reason it can't he helped, oh well, that's the way it is. Additionally a dead body is just a body - the soul joins god (or falls to hell) at the moment of death at the moment of death, so what a bunch of pagan barbarians do with the body isn't really much concern for the person in question.

Now, the story itself is an urban legend, and may or may not be true. However, given the context of US behavior during its occupation of the Philippines, such treatment of the dead would hardly be surprising. If the pigskin stroy is true, it certainly isn't what quelled the uprising - remarkable American brutality and wholesale slaughter of men, women, and children such as the "battle" of Bud Dajo were what did it.

The simple solution to avoiding attacks in the Philippines would be to stop occupying the Islands, stop killing lots of civilians, and let the Filipinos do their own thing. We could reach the same resolution in the Middle East. If the United States stopped interfering with every nation in the region, stopped supporting brutal authoritarian regimes, and quit its nasty habit of blowing up Afghan weddings, there really wouldn't be much drive to attack us.

I mean really, if you walk up to a guy and start insulting his wife and slapping him around, he's going to knock you on your ass, or do his best to try. In order to avoid him hitting back, don't start something.

reply to post by Max_TO


hello max,
violence begets violence, do you want to see the us soliders getting snatch from the streets overseas put again on utube getting their throats cut like a pig. the average americian that sprouts this revenge crap is a scared little white man whose ignorance knows no bounds, wake up you dumb dingbats.

reply to post by tri-lobe-1


Actual when I herd the guy make his prediction last night it troubled me and I tend to agree with the pi$$ the world off bit . I personally don't think it would work and would actually be very counter productive . I am however grateful for the earlier post that shed light on this so called , urban legend , as I was not aware of this , or as to how this guy last night was able to formulate this notion .

Terrorism is a great way to scare your enemy into reacting to you.

So basically the world is giving them what they want, they have already won.

The leaders behind these acts would LOVE for people to get angry, it's the whole point. Hatred spreads, which means more people will controlled by these leaders by "using" all the hatred and fear in the world.

It's ALL about control.

So how do you stop this control? Well in simple terms you do the opposite of hatred and fear as much as you can.

Can you ignore theses terrorists? of course not!
BUT I think "limiting" our reaction to them would help make them eventually slowly dissapear in the future, but of course by then the world will have different problems.

But right now the MEDIA is the biggest terrorist.
Basically in my opinion, the media has made this world the way it is, by overreacting to these events ON PURPOSE, not caring about the consequences. They exaggerate, they show way too many highly negative one sided stories of the world and people and there is SO much propaganda out there it's unreal.
The medias power is literally one of the MAIN driving forces behind why the world is the way it is now with terrorism and many other things.
Oh well.

Remember hatred spreads hatred, but love also spreads love, stay positive people, it's the only way to change the future.

Peace.



[edit on 2-1-2010 by _Phoenix_]

I'm sure every conceivable strategy, no matter how ridiculous, has been thoroughly explored on the psych-ops front. I can just see it now, bacon filled paint balls and bacon strip launchers... but seriously, the prankster in me, would be interested in seeing what sort of reaction this would manifest.

Originally posted by Max_TO
Last night I was listening to Coast to Coast and Art Bell was doing his yearly prediction show . One caller predicted that in the very near future a Western solder would kill and bury a " terrorist " in the skin of a pig .

The caller made the prediction that this act would catch on and given how the Islamic world would view this act and there beliefs that this act would prevent them from entering into heaven that the war in Afghanistan would come to a speedy end .

Would this work ? Or would this just pi$$ the world off to no end ?

Ok first of all no such rule exists in the quran that I know of. It's just made up.

Muslims simply don't have to eat or handle pork on purpose. If they were forced or buried with pork etc it would not be their fault and would not cause any difference with entering heaven.

And now how can this caller be so simple minded lol, no offence. It's a very simple and ignorant way of thinking in my opinion.

In my opinion such acts would cause the exact opposite.

Here is a one small example of the many reasons why in my opinion:

There are about 1.8 billion muslims in the world. So lets say 0.5 % (which is a HIGH percentage) react to this pork act in violent ways. That makes 9 000 000!! more people for the soldiers in afghanistan to worry about!

So yeah NOT a great idea, it would simply cause more WORLD problems. Even if only 0.0005% react to it violently, you have to remember hatred spreads hatred, so that 0.0005% would quickly turn into more over the years.


The world is a crazy place.



"Keep your thoughts positive because your thoughts become your words. Keep your words positive because your words become your behaviors. Keep your behaviors positive because your behaviors become your habits. Keep your habits positive because your habits become your values. Keep your values positive because your values become your destiny." - Gandhi

Peace.

[edit on 2-1-2010 by _Phoenix_]

reply to post by _Phoenix_


Exactly. It would play into the hands of the extremists. They can point to how the US categorically doesn't respect Islam, and use that as a rallying call to recruit more fighters.

The best way to stop terrorism, as the British learned in Northern Ireland, is to talk to the terrorists. If the terrorists have actual, real grievances, admit fault and deal with them. If not, you have the moral right to fight back with all your might, and the evidence to show the world and get unlimited support. To not talk is to perpetuate the fight. The US most likely doesn't talk to the terrorists as the US knows it's screwed up in the past (such as raping Saudi Arabia out of $50bn, keeping troops stationed on Muslim holy land, not to mention the whole Shah of Iran stuff, etc. etc.).

The best way to prevent terrorism is to open avenues of frank discussion with all and sundry, all around the world. Most folks will ignore that option, unless the country in question starts messing with said folks. Then the country doing the messing will know full well that it is annoying people. If it then changes its ways, or can persuade the people it's 'messing' with that it is doing so altruistically (or at least in mutual best interest) then the people will not get any angrier, and no one reaches for a weapon.

Talking saves lives. Democracy should not stop at the borders of nations, but at the borders of spheres of influence. For one country to affect another should be a tacit agreement to listen to the affected country/people, with the real aim of solving any issues.

Peace is harder than war.