I prefer to call them “homicide martyrs”. 
…take one down and pass 'er around
71 virginal chicks on the wall…
“Fucking lunatics” is my fave description.
The thing is, you can’t stop a determined nutjob, so we’ve got to be as fatalistic as they are and say “Fuck you! You’re not going to make me change my lifestyle, and live in fear!”, while mocking their perverted beliefs at every opportunity.
Not sure about the 9/11 bombers, but there are plenty of memorials to suicide bombers in the West Bank and Gaza… murals, streets named after them, etc.
Actually, come to think of it, didn’t US troops in Iraq find some sort of display celebrating the 9/11 attacks? I don’t know if it was a memorial to the bombers specifically, though.
What? Since when are the Nazis a “dirty secret” in Germany? There are many many museums and memorials for the victims of Nazi terror and it is taught in schools extensively. Holocaust DENIAL is banned, as is the display of the swastika in glorifying circumstances, but that is certainly not meant to stifle discussion.
Yeah, being a Nazi is illegal, too. They don’t realize the irony.
Keep in mind that the Constitution of Germany was written in 1949, while the country was still occupied by Allied forces and people wanted to make sure that what had happened in the previous 20 years would never, ever happen again. Perhaps the Nazi party or Nazi imagery could be legalized today, but really, who’s going to argue in favour of this?
And there are neo-Nazis in Germany today (of course it’s not a mainstream movement); the law as it exists doesn’t seem to stop them from assembling. Adrian could of course say more about them than I could, since he is actually in Germany.
During the Philippines uprising after the annexation in 1898, in which Muslims participated in a major way, Patton, or somebody, had a large batch of prisoners shot. First, a pig was slaughtered in front of them, then the bullets were dipped in the blood, then the enlisted bastards loaded and fired. Except one prisoner was intentionally spared. He was allowed to run away and tell the other Muslims what happened. Apparently it worked, because the Muslims stopped participating in the uprising. That idea has worked historically. The only question is would it work now. I don’t know. I’m not a Muslim.
Probably not true, or at least undetermined - General Pershing on How to Stop Islamic Terrorists | Snopes.com
And it was Pershing, not Patton.
Yeah. At the time of the Philippines annexation in 1898, Patton was thirteen years old.
Well, that’s why I said “or someone”. I didn’t remember. Pershing sounds right, but as I said, I didn’t remember.
Reading the snopes account, I’m guessing it wasn’t Pershing himself who did it. I’m a military history buff, and I heard the story years before the Internet was something any but a few techies had heard of. I’m thinking something like it actually happened, but since there’s no actual documentary evidence that it was Pershing, it probably wasn’t him. When I heard the story, Muslim fanaticism wasn’t an issue with people, so there was no reason to be spreading the story, except as a bit of interesting history. Still, I can’t document it, so I’m willing to accept that the story is apocryphal.
Your knowledge of history is weak. The Moro Rebellion continued for years. The Americans finally pulled out when fighting in Mexico and France started to look more important. Filipino Muslims continue to fight against government forces and are still fighting today over a hundred years later. So it appears the idea of attacking people’s religion doesn’t work very well.
Why would they? Bush, Cheney, and Silverstein are still alive.
I don’t think the OP’s idea is any good but I am greatly amused by all the “it would only piss off the terrorists” posts, as though not pissing them off makes any difference.
I think the argument is that it would piss off other Muslims, perhaps creating more terrorists but at minimum reducing the cooperation we hope to get on combating the problem.
That’s where I’m confused. What Muslim cooperation are we getting at the moment, other than the occasional statement that Islam is"the religion of peace"…well other than all the killing that is.
We’re getting lots of logistical and intelligence cooperation from many Muslim nations. Pakistan in particular has been key in our involvement in Afghanistan. The relationships aren’t without their problems, but if Pakistan decided to not cooperate with us things would be extremely more difficult.
If we is the US or more broadly, the entire West, you have numerous Muslim allies, in the Arab world and elsewhere. Turkey is a long-standing ally. African and Asian Muslim states are certainly quite friendly. Indonesia, Malaysia, Senegal…
I guess the question becomes why you would think there is not cooperation, or why the actions of a tiny minority pretty much restricted to a few geographies overweight the entirely peaceful interactions of hundreds of millions of others.
ETA: this in addition to what telemark says above.
I see what you did there.