RR has the cure for terrorsim!

[Funkenstien]

I'm feeling particularlly chatty tonight.

I'm sure others have thought of this. But it would seem to me very easy to end terrorism. Simply burry the terrorist with a pig since most terrorists are Muslim. I believe that would void out their trip to paridise. I have a feeling after doing that a few times, there won't be so many volunteers.

There might be an initial outcry and uprising, but you could simply take some melted pig fat, get yourself a crop duster and spray the area with it, and let them know that you will continue to defile them until they get the idea that terrorism isn't good for them.

Of course that would infringe on thier human rights.

:jaw:

Well, that solves terrorism. What's on TBN tonight?

:D

[DarkMagician]

So, apparently the terrorists are Jewish AND Muslim.

[c4ts]

Why would "burry"-ing a Muslim with a pig cause him or her to eat it? Wouldn't spraying their crops with pig fat just cause them to hate the US and fight back with twice as much terrorism? :confused:

[FireGarden]

But it would seem to me very easy to end terrorism. Simply burry the terrorist with a pig since most terrorists are Muslim.
I think that it says a lot about the original poster that they believe God can be manipulated so easily.

According to Islam, God decides who goes to heaven and he does not ask for human advice. Why he would change his mind because some "heathen" buried a "worthy" soul in pigskin is beyond me.

But then again, I don't talk to my hands so it's no wonder that the concept is beyond me.


BTW
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week621/cover.html

Major religious traditions have generally supported xenotransplants, based on the idea that God gave man dominion over the animal world. Judaism and Islam, which prohibit the eating of pork, allow the use of pigs to save a life.

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by FireGarden

I think that it says a lot about the original poster that they believe God can be manipulated so easily.

According to Islam, God decides who goes to heaven and he does not ask for human advice. Why he would change his mind because some "heathen" buried a "worthy" soul in pigskin is beyond me.


I believe its that the original poster thinks the terrorists will think God wouldn't allow them into heaven if they're buried in a pigskin, not that they think so themself.

[FireGarden]

Originally posted by sparklecat


I believe its that the original poster thinks the terrorists will think God wouldn't allow them into heaven if they're buried in a pigskin, not that they think so themself.

And he bases that on what?
Certainly not the article I quoted, which puts to rest the idea that all Muslims think they automatically go to hell for coming in contact with pork.


So why would the original poster believe that Muslims believe "heathens" have control over God's decisions? Do they think Muslims are that insecure?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by c4ts
Why would "burry"-ing a Muslim with a pig cause him or her to eat it? Wouldn't spraying their crops with pig fat just cause them to hate the US and fight back with twice as much terrorism? :confused:

I'll go you one better.

Aren't acts such as spraying their crops with pig fat religious based terrorism?

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by FireGarden

And he bases that on what?

Not sure, sorry :)

[FireGarden]

sparklecat,
No, I'm sorry. :)

My reply to you was somewhat brusque.

My anger should be directed towards the original poster. I did even go to RR to try and find the thread, but you can't search without being a member.

Maybe Funkenstien can pass on the jist of my reply. (And Suddenly's reply also - That's a good one!)

[Liamo]

Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.htm) has a page on the subject.

[Filippo Lippi]

Indian Mutiny, anyone?

[c4ts]

The British seal their cartriges with pig fat!

[FireGarden]

c4ts,
Are you talking about this?

http://65.107.211.206/history/empire/1857.html

Indian soldiers of the British Indian Army, drawn mostly from Muslim units from Bengal, mutinied at the Meerut cantonment near Delhi, starting a year-long insurrection against the British. [...]

The insurrection was sparked by the introduction of cartridges rumored to have been greased with pig or cow fat, which was offensive to the religious beliefs of Muslim and Hindu sepoys (soldiers).

In a wider sense, the insurrection was a reaction by the indigenous population to rapid changes in the social order engineered by the British over the preceding century and an abortive attempt by the Muslims to resurrect a dying political order.



I had to quote this from the snopes site:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.htm

Today's popular notion is the concept that a pig is to a Muslim as a crucifix is to a vampire -- simply arm yourself with a porker, and you can use it to render even the most fanatical terrorist helpless, sending him cowering in fear lest he come into contact with anything porcine.
:D

[wayrad]

Originally posted by FireGarden
[B]c4ts,
Are you talking about this?

http://65.107.211.206/history/empire/1857.html
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indian soldiers of the British Indian Army, drawn mostly from Muslim units from Bengal, mutinied at the Meerut cantonment near Delhi, starting a year-long insurrection against the British. [...]

The insurrection was sparked by the introduction of cartridges rumored to have been greased with pig or cow fat, which was offensive to the religious beliefs of Muslim and Hindu sepoys (soldiers).

In a wider sense, the insurrection was a reaction by the indigenous population to rapid changes in the social order engineered by the British over the preceding century and an abortive attempt by the Muslims to resurrect a dying political order.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, that would be pretty offensive. Didn't they have to bite the end off the cartridge and spit the bullet down the barrel?

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by wayrad
Well, that would be pretty offensive. Didn't they have to bite the end off the cartridge and spit the bullet down the barrel?

If you are refering to loading a muzzle loaded rifle, then you're not quite right. The army had a fast loading method that had a bullet and powder wrapped up in paper. The soldier would rip the bottom off of the paper which exposed the powder, then they shoved the whole thing down the barrel and packed it with the ram-rod. The old method was to dump the powder, stick some paper in as wadding, put the bullet in and then ram the whole thing. What you probably remember them doing with their teeth was ripping the paper and spitting out the piece on the ground, not into the barrel.


edited to add:

But, that's not what they were doing, they had cartridged bullets which are all one piece like what is in use today. They used to grease the bullet to make it easier to slide into the brass cartridge. The grease also helped to keep water out of the powder.

[DarkMagician]

Originally posted by FireGarden
Major religious traditions have generally supported xenotransplants, based on the idea that God gave man dominion over the animal world. Judaism and Islam, which prohibit the eating of pork, allow the use of pigs to save a life.Whoops, my bad!

[wayrad]

Originally posted by Dragonrock

But, that's not what they were doing, they had cartridged bullets which are all one piece like what is in use today. They used to grease the bullet to make it easier to slide into the brass cartridge. The grease also helped to keep water out of the powder. Ah, thanks. There seems to be a common misconception about this, though - for example, here:
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Sepoy-Rebellion
I was wondering about it myself, actually - I know they did the biting and spitting (I could have sworn I read about the bullet being kept in the mouth during loading) during the Napoleonic Wars, and it seemed odd that they'd still be doing it in the 1850's. Yet the idea seems pretty widespread in accounts of the sepoy rebellion.

edited to add: Or is there something I'm missing? Did the 1850's cartridges need to be perforated so the powder would ignite, or something like that? (no, couldn't be - I see you said they were brass.)

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by wayrad
(no, couldn't be - I see you said they were brass.)

I don't KNOW they were brass, I just assumed that from the usage of the word "cartridge". Before the cartridge, the package of powder and bullet was just called a "load".

I'm not sure what the link means by this:

Since soldiers had to break the cartridges with their teeth before they could load them into their rifles

I'm emailing a friend who is has more knowledge of firearms history to see if he as some links that better show what this might be refering to.

[wayrad]

Originally posted by Dragonrock


I don't KNOW they were brass, I just assumed that from the usage of the word "cartridge". Before the cartridge, the package of powder and bullet was just called a "load".

I'm not sure what the link means by this:



I'm emailing a friend who is has more knowledge of firearms history to see if he as some links that better show what this might be refering to. Thanks!

A search for "musket cartridge" gets plenty of hits, such as this: http://www.cr.nps.gov/museum/exhibits/revwar/image_gal/vafoimg/vafo928.html
so apparently that is what the paper ones are called (at least now, and in historical novels I've read - admittedly not the most authoritative sources). It looks like they began making the transition to brass cartridges and breech-loading rifles in the 1840's, and some armies didn't do it until the 1860's, so maybe it's possible the sepoys were using old equipment. I'm curious to see what your friend says. :)

Edited to add: Come to think of it, when I was a kid my grandmother gave me a couple of bullets from a Civil War battlefield . One was shaped like a short fat bullet, but the other was definitely round. So they were using some muzzle-loaders, even then!

[FireGarden]

OK, I've decided to find out what their book says (Using the translation of NJ Dawood):

[5:4] You are forbidden carrion, blood, and the flesh of swine; also any flesh dedicated to any other than God. [...] He that is constrained by hunger to eat of what is forbidden, not intending to commit sin, will find God forgiving and merciful.

[2:173] He hath forbidden you carrion, blood and the flesh of swine; also any flesh that is consecrated other than in the name of God. But whoever is compelled through necessity, intending neither to sin nor to transgress, shall incur no guilt. God is forgiving and merciful.



So you are permitted to eat pork under certain conditions. (Or at least you will be forgiven). I don't know where the justification for not wanting to touch pigs comes from.

I can't find Dawood's translation on-line. Here is the translation of Abdullah Yusuf Ali http://web.umr.edu/~msaumr/Quran/ He uses the words "dead meat" instead of "carrion", which would make eating cows and sheep rather tough for Muslims! (Dawood is generally better at translating meaning rather than "word for word")

But Yusuf Ali also begins [2:173] "He hath only forbidden you dead meat, etc, etc..." And Dawood leaves out the "only", which might change the meaning a little.

[Crossbow]

It sounds to me that the RR has some members about my age.

When the Iranian hostages were taken, there was an idea floated concerning using bombers to drop pigs on Tehran since that would demonstrate the American military without an overt military act. And comedian Robin Williams used to joke that he felt "lower than the price of pork in Tehran". And so on.

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by FireGarden
sparklecat,
No, I'm sorry. :)

My reply to you was somewhat brusque.


No problem :):


And here's a link (http://rr-bb.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=126458) for you too.

[FireGarden]

Thanks, sparklecat

I was all set to post to RR (I've registered as FireGarden!) but I can't post replies. It lets me onto my user cp but, when I try to post, it tells me that my account isn't activated yet.

Makes me feel like I'm joining an exclusive club!


They just let any old duffer post over here!

[sparklecat]

*grins* Well, I know of one person who was banned before even posting (still not sure what that was about), so they can be rather exclusivist in some ways.


But hey, they still let me post at least :p