Out of curiosity, does anyone know if “cruel and unusual punishment” extends past one’s mortal lifespan?
Anybody who thinks this would work is fooling themselves in a major way. The Chechens have had a very bad time off it over the last few years. The Moscow hostage saga showed that the Russians will not bend. They are willing to take out a significant number of their own people to show their resolve and yet from here
The UK tried Internment, entrapment, shot to kill policies, aiding the opposing terrorists target possible IRA men and many more tactics but did the IRA stop? No they planted bigger bombs and killed more and more innocents.
This idea is as absurd as the idea that Britain would crumble under the Blitz. Piss people off and they’ll come back at you. Reinforce their prejudices and they’ll find it easier to push their barbarism on you and have it supported by their own people.
Gary Kumquat & Tamerlane
My apologies. I guess skim reading never did anyone any favours 
Consider my objections withdrawn.
Islamic orthodoxy holds that it is best practice to treat dead bodies with respect, to bury as soon as possible. Even criminals should get this treatment, it is a matter of Sunah, so indeed gratitiously descrating fellow Muslims bodies is rather like descrating a Bible.
It most certainly is and it is a matter of pure idiocy to suggest otherwise.
The pigskin is a deliberate, if childish, affront to Muslim beliefs - much in the same way that as a Jew while you might not follow Kosher and perhaps not like the occupation, deliberately taking the bodies of Israeli soldiers and wrapping them in pigflesh or stuffing them with porc and taking other steps to deliberately cast aspersion on your religion is likely to inflame. If such a thing happened, you would soon find december here using it as evidence that “they” hated the Jews etc.
I find it unbelievable, although only marginally so, that you would advance such an idiotic statement.
No, it would be a phenomenally stupid idea, further reinforcing communal hatred.
No expert on Muslim beliefs here. But the fact that someone believes that proper procedure for dealing with a body is such-and-such does not mean they have a reverance for the body, as one might have for a Bible. This is a relatively simple distinction and one that you might wish to consider. Case 1: Defiling a holy object that is unconnected with any crime. Case 2: Failing to honor the religious beliefs of a murderer.
Fascinating, as always.
Again, if it were true that these people indeed believe such things, I am all for it. But I’ve been skeptical of this from the start, and the continuing lack of evidence suggests that it is untrue. Unfortunately.
But the “feeding to pigs” thing is still worth a shot, IMHO.
I have no need to consider the distinction, I was engaging in the evidently vain hope of explaining to you how offensive most Muslims would consider such an act.
Then you are far stupider than I ever previously suspected.
No, you do need to consider the distinction. And what you were actually engaging in was your customary routine of ignoring the actual point being made, in favor of making a forceful but illogical rejoinder.
In this case, if you would take the time to follow the train of discussion - something you really should make a habit of doing before you begin blathering - you would notice that the distinction was made to address a comparison by Mangetout of suicide bombers and abortion clinic bombers. The distinction therefore has direct bearing on the argument that it addressed, and you need to consider it if you wish to comment intelligently.
The fact that you also happen to feel that the pigskin idea is a bad one is another issue.
It’s ironic that (some)people are advocating ths sort of inhuman act based on its (supposed)use by the Soviets against the Chechens. On what planet do you live that the suppression of the Chechens has been even remotely successful?
Good point 5-HT. The Russians “understand how to deal with Muslim terrorists”? I suppose that’s why Russia is so blessedly free of Muslim terrorism, huh :rolleyes:
So-called Muslim terrorism, I should say.
do you think its a good idea?
Is this some sort of trick question? I could have sworn I’ve already answered it twice in this very thread.
IANA expert on Islamic law. Frankly, I’m not even an expert on halacha(Jewish Law).
I am certain of this-the Talmud commands us to treat corpses with respect.
Here’s what I was trying to say (sure, you can pick at the differences, like you can with any comparison):
The terrorists are wrong to do what they do and (assuming that they really do believe it would deny them salvation) it would be a huge insult to bury them with pig flesh, it would reinforce any propaganda that they spread about ‘evil westerners’. Moderate Muslims looking on might well be deeply outraged that we saw fit to mock their religion (even though they may not have condoned the activities of the extremists)
The abortion bombers are wrong to do what they do and it would be a huge insult to force them to urinate on a Bible, it would reinforce any propaganda that they spread about ‘godless atheists’. Moderate Christians looking on might well be deeply outraged that we saw fit to mock their religion (even though they may not have condoned the activities of the extremists)
That’s the comparison I was trying to make, all of the attempts to pick at differences so far are missing the point, we could list hundreds of differences between Muslim and Christian belief and thousands of differences between pigs and Bibles, the point is that wrapping dead Muslims in pork is liable to cause more harm than good.
Doc Cathode,
Talmudic law would allow desecration of corpses to save lives.
Mangetout,
If you start off with the notion that it will cause more harm than good, you don’t need analogies. The issue we are debating is whether in fact it will cause more harm than good. Thus there is no point in illustrating this with analogies which don’t show this. (Attempting to wave off differences by calling them “pick at” adds nothing, IMHO).
Izzy,
There are those who disagree with that statement. Consider for a moment those “ultra-Orthodox” who interefere with ambulances on the Sabbath in Israel. One would presume that the ambulance is on a life-saving mission; however, that has no meaning whatsoever to those who interfere with it. All they want is to ensure that no work, of any kind, for any purpose–even to save a life–is performed on the Sabbath.
Humor me. Yes or No question.
Do you think that desecrating the dead by insulting their religious beliefs will restrain your opponents from attacking you?
Yeah, if I said to you “Destroy this corpse or I’ll blow up San Diego”, it would.
It wouldn’t let you desecrate corpses based on some unproven theory that it might discourage future terrorists.
Perhaps not surprisingly, I disagree, Do I need to mention that there seem to be a lot of posts in this thread which have started off with the notion that it will cause more good than harm?
I believe the analogy as it stands is valid - ‘picking at’ in order to dismiss is a tactic to which analogies very often seem to fall victim - analogies can be (and are intended to be) useful in the parallel parts, not the parts that fail to align; this one was intended to illustrate a similar (but not the same) situation that was a little closer to home and within our grasp. In point of fact there must be at least one difference for an analogy to be useful at all, otherwise It would be “How can I describe an egg?, well, it’s just like an egg”
Of course it is different… Muslims and Christians are different, pigs and Bibles are different, desecration of an individual is different to desecration of a revered object.
Do you think moderate muslims would not be offended by adoption of this policy?
You have been misinformed. No such thing exists.
I disagree.
To the extent that you have a straightforward question to ask, I’ve already answered it. Don’t play games.
Of course there are - that’s the whole point, again.
No, if you give an analogy, and your opponent’s position is that the differences between the two cases are significant to his position, then it makes no difference if you think the differences are not significant. Your objective is to communicate - if you are to dismiss your opponent’s position out of hand you may as well just sit at home and think about how right you are.
Again, I understand without any analogies that you think it will do more harm than good. And I think everyone else does too - it’s not that difficult a concept. Give it a rest.
Heavily dependent on who you call “moderate”. If you mean someone who truly abhors such terrorism, I would say not much. If you mean someone who would perhaps not do it himself but sympathizes with the general idea, I would say yes.
But in general, you can’t fight wars or terrorism worrying too much about who you might offend. There are people who are going to be offended at anything that you do. There are few actions undertaken in the war on terrorism that are not supposed to be turning the moderate Muslims against the US. The same goes for Israel, and in this case Russia. Fact is that in any conflict, those who tend to sympathize with Side A are going to regard Side A’s tactics as fairer and more humane and less offensive than those of Side B. And those who sympathize with Side B are going to think the exact opposite. That’s the way it goes, and it is a mistake to let yourself to be completely driven by such considerations. If a given tactic will not accomplish much it is not worth it, but if it will work I say do it.