What About Pouring Hogs Blood on Terrorist As A Preventative Measure?

Another method supposedly employed was to convince the enemy that your bullets are greased with pork fat. Hence, if you get shot, you won’t die a martyr’s death. I don’t recall when this was supposedly employed (back in the days when bullets would have been greased, I guess), but supposedly it was fairly effective.

WB, I’d still like to see you address the question that Andros posted; sure pigs blood on a Muslim isn’t the same as a Christian defiling the cross or bible, but to ordinary peaceful people (Christian or Muslim), I suspect that the two things are qualitatively equivalent, I disagree with your statement:

“if they are indeed peaceful [insert religion] they should understand that we are doing [insert blasphemous act] to the terrorist to stop them”,

No way! were not going to give Government housing and Welfare to Terrorists! We need it for all these un-wed teenage mothers that couldn’t get an abortion because some dink decided that a three week old fetus without a developed nervous system was a Life. The majority of abortion clinics do not perform the procedure after the 1st trimester. Beyond that time the fetus has a developing nervous system, hands, feet, its almost absorbed the vestigal tail, giving signs that its becoming a human.

oops! this isn’t an Abort or not to Abort OP. sorry.:smiley:

A friend sent me this from a list he’s on. I don’t know the originator of this, but I think it’s a damn sight better than WB’s proposition:

*Another patriotic call to action for the nation:

No candles needed this week…

The President has asked that we unite for a common cause.

Since the hard-line Islamic terrorists cannot stand nudity, and consider it a sin to see a naked woman that is not their wife, tonight at 7:00 PM, all patriotic American women are asked to run outside naked to help weed out the terrorists.

The United States appreciates your efforts, and applauds you!

Sincerely,
Bill Clinton*

A friend of mine who served in Desert Storm said that there was a camera crew at one of their bases taping preparations for battle that was to be broadcast to the Iraqis for propaganda purposes - it was intended to demonstrate how well-equipped and enthusiastic the American troops were to shake the morale of the enemy. They had an interview with a soldier who was talking as he fried some bacon, and the camera zoomed in as he used a machine-gun cartridge to move the bacon around in the pan. This was pre-planned and intended to scare some of the more superstitious Muslim soldiers. It’s true that in Islam, as in Judaism, you can break the dietary laws under extreme circumstances and that it doesn’t matter if someone forces you to do something that is unclean, but not every Muslim is a well-read scholar of the Qu’ran and it is believed by many that your reward in the afterlife IS compromised if you die polluted, regardless of the circumstances.

An old Army buddy of mine served on a peacekeeping mission on the IRan/Iraq border before the Gulf War.

During one memorable incident, he and some of his buddies gave some of their IMPs (Canadian army rations) to a group of Iraqi soldiers. As they happily devoured the contents - Canadian field rations are some of the best in the world - one came up asking what was in it. Paul, my buddy, noted that the contents of the packet was a ham omelette.

Whoops.

Yet, surprisingly to them, the Iraqis didn’t seem that bothered by it. They immediately got rid of all the ham omelette packs and looked sort of disgusted, but there was no major panic. Paul and his buddies were apologizing profusely, but the Iraqi explained that since he hadn’t eaten pork on purpose, it wasn’t really a sin. So there you go.

Rick Jay,

Yep I guess you’re right these guys aren’t bothered by it that much. Now I am wondering if that what happened in WWII was indeed an urban legend or not?

Well skip this idea too. But I pledge I will keep thinking on it to come up with a solution.

Didn’t some of the terrorists go on a drinking binge before they attacked? If they don’t care about the prohibition against alcohol, I don’t know if pig’s blood would scare them.

One very important thing to remember:
if you are going to pour pig’s blood on a terrorist,
DON’T ELECT HIM PROM QUEEN!!!

JDM

Thanks, I needed a good laugh. :smiley:

Wildest Bill

The US has Muslim allies. Those people are willing to help in the fight against terrorism, and the US wants all the help it can get. However, if the US starts violating Muslim’s beliefs - even if it’s only against terrorists - the allies are going to turn against us.

It’s like if the situation was reversed and the Muslims were helping the US fight Christian terrorists. If the Muslims started sacrificing Christian terrorists to Satan in order to demoralized the other terrorists, the Christian citizens of the US would be outraged and would turn against the Muslims.

In short, we would offend our Muslim allies if we did what you suggest. They may not like the terrorists but they love their God, and would be revolted by the idea of helping the American people commit acts against Allah.

While I see the negative side of this tactic now especially since we are getting some Muslim help now, I did get some more information about the WWI inccident.

It was General Pershing and it happened in the Phillipines(sp) just in case y’all wanted to know. So I think it is a true story not an urban legend.

Details, Bill?

Rest easy, boys. Bill is on the job.

Minor nitpick here.

To keep doing something implies one has been doing that thing already. We already know WB has not even begun to think.

Urban Legend

Urban Legend **
[/QUOTE]

QUIET, you fool…

Probably not.

Pershing’s troops did kill some 2000 Moros (and, according to some sources, women and children) by artillery and bayonet point in an engagement in 1913. However, I’ve found nothing to indicate that he used Bill’s tactic in his efforts to passify the Moros.

One source even claims he won the respect of the Moros by advocating limited self-rule.

I don’t think “Probably not” is the conclusion I’d draw from Cecil’s article. More like, “The British sure as heck intended to, but there is no firm evidence to indicate whether or not they actually carried out their plan.”