This is for discussion, so don’t jump on me for what I have put in this thread. I’m not saying it’s a good idea or a bad one, just interested in people’s views and counter arguments.

With the recent bombings in London and across the world, I started to think of how we can go about combating these kinds of Islamic Extremists.

One thing we are never going to be able to fully stop is a person who believes if he blows himself to bits and kills other infidels in the process he will go to heaven, sit with his god, gain the services of 74 virgins and be able to choose 24 people from his family who will get also gain automatic access to heaven.

These kinds of people have a conviction that will probably never be broken by standard police tactics and the more we stop the more they will become convinced of their cause.

So, to my point, I'm not 100% sure of the validity of the reports but I heard the Russians buried the Moscow Theatre abductors (Islamist Extremists) in pig skin because this, in the Muslim faith prevents that person from ascending to heaven.

So if these people use their faith to justify there actions and to give them reason for committing such atrocities, should we counter there actions by using another aspect of there religion against them.

We must admit one of the major reasons, if not the major reason for carrying out a suicide bomb attack is they believe they gain automatic access to paradise. If they thought they won’t get that because there bodies will be buried in pig skin, then will this fact make them think twice?

I know by doing this we could anger other people from the Muslim faith, but as these imams and clerics have said on many occasions, these people are not Muslims they do not represent the Muslim faith. There fore they cannot argue that fellow Muslims are being badly treated!

Counter arguments and views please?

Some sources seem to suggest that Islamic terrorists find the justification for their actions in the writings of Islamic religious scholars rather than in the holy texts of their religion.

If these writings can from their point of view justify mass murder, is it not possible that they can also be used to find a way around such an issue as well?

Can secular institutions really utilise religious dogma in such a way and hope to have any kind of credibility in the eyes of extremists contemplating terrorist acts?

We could find those people guilty of being religious fundamentalists, take all their money and possessions off them, as we do or are supposed to do with drug barons.
Send them home with a one way ticket and ban them from coming in our country again. This will stop the people who are thinking about becoming one.


Just a thought!!!

How exacltly do you bury a suicide bomber in anything, never mind pig skin? It wouldnt be a body, more like millions of little bits of body and could never all be collected.

Or as I heard on the radio recently
"I think we should try the suicide bombers with treason, the threat of hanging would surely put them off"

I guess he was towards the end of the queue when the were handing out brains.

Whoever is doing this will always be able to find willing bombers - if they are not promised paradise it will be $$$ for their families, recognition, etc. If you think they really believe in the virgins etc, don't you think they are credulous enough to believe anything their masters tell them?

And if they don't believe in the virgins, then no amount of pigskin is going to deter them either.

A policy like this smacks of desecrating corpses, the sort of barbarism we like our enemies to be known for, not ourselves. Nor is it likely to improve the standing of the UK in the Middle East.

The Israeli state has had palestinian suicide bombers for some time. If burying them in pigskin works they would be doing it right now.

I suppose a less controversial way of combatting terrorism would be for foreign governments to stop interfering in Muslim countries such as Palestine, Iran, Iaq, Syria, Chechnya, Kashmir... and so on.

Another way would be to engineer equipment that runs on solar power instead of requiring oil.

I certainly think those who are caught should only be given a boiled pig's head to eat and if they don't like it they can go hungry and also a copy of the Koran for toilet paper.

As for the origional sugestion I would back it in principle but am not sure what would be left of any suicide bomber and how practical it would be.

I often wonder how long the IRA campaign of terror would have lasted if the government had put out a statement to the effect that in the event of any more bombs the leaders of Sinn fain/IRA and their wives and children would be killed. Harsh but maybe effective. It was never tried so we can never know but even the likes of Gerry Adams etc would have to be pretty commited to their 'cause' to continue it knowing their own children would pay with their lives. just a thought.

Originally posted by slimsid2000

I often wonder how long the IRA campaign of terror would have lasted if the government had put out a statement to the effect that in the event of any more bombs the leaders of Sinn fain/IRA and their wives and children would be killed. Harsh but maybe effective. It was never tried so we can never know but even the likes of Gerry Adams etc would have to be pretty commited to their 'cause' to continue it knowing their own children would pay with their lives. just a thought.

I can understand your point here and agree that it probably would be an effective way to stop terrorists. However, in a 'civilised' society how would you be able to justify these methods?

In order for our government to authorise such a measure they would also have to be capable of commiting us to other equally horrific policies that you might not agree with and may not be in the public interest.

Any government that would even consider the act of threatening innocent women and children would in the very act prove themselves little better than terrorists themselves and loose the respect of the electorate in the name of whom they governed.

Originally posted by Duffer
I can understand your point here and agree that it probably would be an effective way to stop terrorists. However, in a 'civilised' society how would you be able to justify these methods?



I suppose I would justify it by saying it would save more inocent lives than it took.

Besides, you miss my point. It would be a deterant. The idea is that the leaders would not want it brought home to them in that way (they are happy enough to kill other's children) so they would send out the instruction to halt the bombing.

Originally posted by Abdul
I suppose a less controversial way of combatting terrorism would be for foreign governments to stop interfering in Muslim countries such as Palestine, Iran, Iaq, Syria, Chechnya, Kashmir... and so on.

Another way would be to engineer equipment that runs on solar power instead of requiring oil.

Here here, then we could cease all communication, trade embargo, close the doors, pull up the draw bridge - the full works.


Now - where's that wind up radio I once had? :heyhey:

Originally posted by Abdul
I suppose a less controversial way of combatting terrorism would be for foreign governments to stop interfering in Muslim countries such as Palestine, Iran, Iaq, Syria, Chechnya, Kashmir... and so on.

Another way would be to engineer equipment that runs on solar power instead of requiring oil.

That sounds like appeasment to me. It wouldn't work as their demands would just grow with time.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
I suppose I would justify it by saying it would save more inocent lives than it took.

Besides, you miss my point. It would be a deterant. The idea is that the leaders would not want it brought home to them in that way (they are happy enough to kill other's children) so they would send out the instruction to halt the bombing.

Yes, I agree that it would be a deterrant and I did agree that it would probably work as well. But my point was basically; where would it stop?

Originally posted by slimsid2000
That sounds like appeasment to me. It wouldn't work as their demands would just grow with time.

And what do you percieve these demands to be?

Originally posted by Duffer
Yes, I agree that it would be a deterrant and I did agree that it would probably work as well. But my point was basically; where would it stop?
Most likely it wouldn't and by enacting such a policy the government would have set a precedent that the punishment for crimes of one individual could be meted out to their relatives who could be innocent of any wrongdoing.

Sins of the father visited upon the children...very biblical and very brutal.:loopy:

Originally posted by Don_Kiddick
Here here, then we could cease all communication, trade embargo, close the doors, pull up the draw bridge - the full works.


Now - where's that wind up radio I once had? :heyhey:

Maybe roy has it? :P

Originally posted by slimsid2000
I suppose I would justify it by saying it would save more inocent lives than it took.

Besides, you miss my point. It would be a deterant. The idea is that the leaders would not want it brought home to them in that way (they are happy enough to kill other's children) so they would send out the instruction to halt the bombing.

so the means justifies the end, and the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

You cannot commit acts that are morally wrong and claim to have any right to govern or rule by law... You act like a terrorist and you become a terrorist, kill the terrorists famalies and you justify there very existance, hell I'd support freedom fighters who were fighting such an evil and unjust government that would do such a thing.

I fail to see how not interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign states is appeasment. Have you seen team america? Do you actually believe that we have some sort of moral imperative and/or right to go around policing the world?

I can't understand what Abdul quite means by , "foreign " countries interfering in the places he mentions.Western countries certainly try to influence events but lots of countries try to influence other countries-----it's part of Real Politik.
Kashmir ? Isn't that a conflict of sorts between India and Pakistan ?
Chechnya ? Isn't that part of Russia ?
Syria ? Where are all the Western troops and agents ?
Iran ? Ditto
Palestine ? The only , "western" country operating in Palestine is Israel .
Iraq ? Well , the justification for us being there is a moot point .
Whatever , "interfering " , we're doing , if any , in these countries , I don't think we're blowing innocent people up , deliberately------in all but Iraq , we're not even a presence.
It's very strange , how at one time , Arabic countries welcomed the West with open arms to enable to get oil out of the ground and make them and us rich. Then , when a number of fanatics blame the West for corrupting Islam .......etc......and start to bomb us , we get the blame for that too.
The terrorists have been bombing the West long before the invasion of Iraq.

Firstly as a "deterrent", covering them in pigskin, bacon, DairyLea Lunchables or whatever doesn't matter when they are dead. There was a hospital worker "done" for putting bacon on a dead asian woman in a morgue. Obviously sickening for the family in question but they expained that when the person is already dead, they are perceived as already trancended to "heaven". Too late by then.
Second and much more important, it's barbaric. We would be no better than those who use any form of religon as an excuse for murder.

Iran, Iraq and Afganhistan (the perceived breeding ground for terrorists) were all "moderate" progressive middle Eastern countries decades ago. The Russians did the same as the US in Iraq and look what we have now. The CIA trained Bin Laden and the Mujahadeen (Later to become the Taliban) and look what we have now.

I'm no "tree hugger" or "neo-nazi" but I despise anyone trying to inflict their force of will or beliefs on another through force or terror. US OR THEM!!!

Further to Fareast's comments, it's also true that plenty of non-Muslim countries are being interfered with by foreign governments - and not just "western" foreign governments (unless you count China as "western"). Also that plenty of non-Muslims are being persecuted by Muslims in places such as Indonesia or (until recently) southern Sudan or northern Nigeria. Also that different types of Muslim are persecuting each other e.g. in Darfur or Turkey or, indeed, Iraq. Whatever is unique about the causes of Islamic violence against non-Muslim civilians, it's not a unique degree of grievance with those civilians' governments.

As for the original topic of the thread, I think Phan's first post says it all.

Originally posted by Lightninboy
Firstly as a "deterrent", covering them in pigskin, bacon, DairyLea Lunchables or whatever doesn't matter when they are dead. There was a hospital worker "done" for putting bacon on a dead asian woman in a morgue. Obviously sickening for the family in question but they expained that when the person is already dead, they are perceived as already trancended to "heaven". Too late by then.
Second and much more important, it's barbaric. We would be no better than those who use any form of religon as an excuse for murder.

Iran, Iraq and Afganhistan (the perceived breeding ground for terrorists) were all "moderate" progressive middle Eastern countries decades ago. The Russians did the same as the US in Iraq and look what we have now. The CIA trained Bin Laden and the Mujahadeen (Later to become the Taliban) and look what we have now.

I'm no "tree hugger" or "neo-nazi" but I despise anyone trying to inflict their force of will or beliefs on another through force or terror. US OR THEM!!!

Well said. Russia steamrolled into Chechnya, flattened the country, robbed the oil, made widows out of thousands, killed indiscriminately. They now have a terrorist problem. Sound familiar? Violence breeds violence, and no amount of pigskin is going to change that.

Originally posted by Abdul
I suppose a less controversial way of combatting terrorism would be for foreign governments to stop interfering in Muslim countries such as Palestine, Iran, Iaq, Syria, Chechnya, Kashmir... and so on.
Does "and so on" include Serbia, and Ethiopia… …"and so on".

Admittedly Somalia "went wrong", but it was a UN mission, for the best of reasons, and don't forget, it didn't "go wrong" until the US reacted to the killing of Pakistani (Muslim) peacekeepers.

Who decides when it's "right" for us to interfere, to help Muslims, and when it's "wrong"?

:confused:

perhaps we should leave them to destroy themselves..it seems to be a growing sport within the Moslem faith - perhaps they could get it added to the Olympics - syncronised suicide bombing..

I bet the poor souls who believe they'll get to a better place once they've blown their brains out are really ****** off in the darkness to find out its all a lie... after death there is nothing..

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Does "and so on" include Serbia, and Ethiopia… …"and so on".

Admittedly Somalia "went wrong", but it was a UN mission, for the best of reasons, and don't forget, it didn't "go wrong" until the US reacted to the killing of Pakistani (Muslim) peacekeepers.

Who decides when it's "right" for us to interfere, to help Muslims, and when it's "wrong"?

:confused:

Abdul has a point although Foo-fighter answers it perfectly. Also in relation to non-oil energy this may at least get the 'war's for oil' critics off the UK's back.

We can easily leave most Muslim countries to fight it out between them, watch dictators slaughter those who dont follow his/her policies but i'm not sure this is the answer. Somone needs to keep peace and even if the war was UN backed i still feel the bombing would have happened.

Although we are a multi-cultural society, different sections of the society live seperatley. There are certain parts of Sheffield which is over 75% Muslim and i wouldn't venture there with confidence. We need to integrate better and maybe then the extrmeists wouldn't be harboured as easily as they are, but at this moment we are not integrated and in my opinion many like living here but dont like us Brits (whether white or British Muslim!)

I feel that on one has all the answers but an understanding of natural human reaction is important. Why is it that when the twin towers were attacked that we felt like "we" have been attacked? And in the same token why do we begrudge Muslims feeling the same pang of sympathy for their fellow Muslims. The home grown terrorists are evil to fight somebody else's war in this country but at the same time by colluding with USA we are doing exactly the same thing. Some people on here treat the issue as lightly as discussing a football match in us and them terms and would justify anything as long as we win but ignore the misery of loosing human life in London or in Baghdad. Is it not part of the bible that says don't do unto others etc....?

Abdul makes a valid but simplistic point that foreign countries should not interfere, and yet you have millions of Iraqis and government of Afghanistan wants the British and Americans to stay. It can be justified that mostly its not interference but lack of understanding of democracy in those countries because the losing side never accepts the results, now that is not the Americans fault is it? In most Muslim countries the winner takes all and the losers are left to fight for their rights through violence. The problem so far has been that the Americans have ended up supporting the guy who best looked after their interests, and who could blame them for that. They simply get peoples' wind up when they start suggesting that they are actual helping them. There have been a string of such grievances be they Moslem or like the Sandinistas or Noriega in Latin America. End of rant! told you, no simple answers.

Originally posted by tab1
I feel that on one has all the answers but an understanding of natural human reaction is important....

...End of rant! told you, no simple answers.
Good post.

:thumbsup:

Originally posted by serapis


One thing we are never going to be able to fully stop is a person who believes if he blows himself to bits and kills other infidels in the process he will go to heaven, sit with his god, gain the services of 74 virgins and be able to choose 24 people from his family who will get also gain automatic access to heaven.


I've always been intrigued by this 'reward' of x number of virgins in heaven. My understanding is that in Islamic law fornication is a mortal sin.

Is Islamic heaven perhaps a place where Muslims can ignore all the rules they were supposed to have observed in their eathly life ? :help:

Originally posted by Greybeard
I've always been intrigued by this 'reward' of x number of virgins in heaven. My understanding is that in Islamic law fornication is a mortal sin.

Is Islamic heaven perhaps a place where Muslims can ignore all the rules they were supposed to have observed in their eathly life ? :help:

I think the "test of submission to God" is over at the point of death or as some would say crossing over, and then ...... wow! ..... but if only your soul goes to heaven and flesh remains here......vigins.........er..... whats the point ?
Take a look at this link http://christiananswers.net/gospel/goingtoheaven.html and you may find all religions put a lot of demands on a questioning mind. The half hour film (to me) seems to glorify heaven and the eternal life and points to how we can get in there (from Christian perspective). If you do manage to view the film, then just imagin a young moron with no direction in life being told that if he sacrifices himself for the greater good, he will get rewarded by "heaven", and eternal life of bliss whatever that may be. and boom!

Unfortunately TRUTH is different things to different people, and all regard their OWN set of beliefs to be the ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

Greybeard,
I am a scholar of The Daily Telegraph rather than the Koran, but I once read N.A.Dawood's English translation from cover to cover. My impression is that 'fornication' is only considered a sin outside of marriage. It is said that Allah rewards a husband for 'making love'/engaging in sexual congress with his wife, because that is the 'correct' way of things. There are exceptions, in the case of 'slave girls', which an owner is permitted to pleasure himself with. I assume the virgins currently awaiting swains from Bradford to Islamabad in Paradise are also exceptions to the rule.

Originally posted by serapis
We must admit one of the major reasons, if not the major reason for carrying out a suicide bomb attack is they believe they gain automatic access to paradise. If they thought they won’t get that because there bodies will be buried in pig skin, then will this fact make them think twice?

Finding enough bits to bury may be difficult ;)
Perhaps that's where the 'automatic access' comes in :confused:

Originally posted by tab1
...http://christiananswers.net/gospel/goingtoheaven.html ...

Is it just me or does the logo at the start of the movie look like a big pair of boobs?

Im so going to hell :hihi:

Originally posted by serapis
Is it just me or does the logo at the start of the movie look like a big pair of boobs?

Im so going to hell :hihi:

I hadn't noticed that but now that you mention it I feel good many of us forumers will be joining you after going back to check for the second time.lol.......

Huge numbers of British people have campaigned, marched, got into violent clashes with the establishment to oppose the West's involvement in many countries. A majority opposed going into Iraq.

So who do terrorists terrorise, their real enemy - Blair and his advisors, complicit industrialists. No! It's us, normal folk, look at the lives of those who died in London recently:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4668245.stm

Really sad reading isn't it, I'd p**s on the remains of terrorists if I could, the selfish lazy halfwits.

Its heart breaking to see the list of names of people fallen victim to this cowardly crime, especially when they are staring out at you from the page.

Another list of people (much longer) is below .. again heartbreaking to read especially the number of children and babies that perished. The youngest of which being 2 years old!

http://www.september11victims.com/september11Victims/victims_list.htm

Originally posted by slimsid2000
I suppose I would justify it by saying it would save more inocent lives than it took.

Besides, you miss my point. It would be a deterant. The idea is that the leaders would not want it brought home to them in that way (they are happy enough to kill other's children) so they would send out the instruction to halt the bombing. the germans did it in the last war,not only the families of the freedom fighters as we called them,some times whole villages were wiped out,its happened all through history but were now supposedly too civilised, fight fire with fire and be damned by the rest of the world, or hunt them down,hang them and return any family back to where their origins are and sod their human rights or plea of "i was born here"

what other deterant have we got? a soft justice system isnt going to work,they get locked up, their family are still looked after,what do they loose except their freedom? a stance has to be made once and for all,true moslems would have nothing to fear and they as well as every one else can sleep safer in their beds

Originally posted by serapis
This is for discussion, so don’t jump on me for what I have put in this thread. I’m not saying it’s a good idea or a bad one, just interested in people’s views and counter arguments.

With the recent bombings in London and across the world, I started to think of how we can go about combating these kinds of Islamic Extremists.

One thing we are never going to be able to fully stop is a person who believes if he blows himself to bits and kills other infidels in the process he will go to heaven, sit with his god, gain the services of 74 virgins and be able to choose 24 people from his family who will get also gain automatic access to heaven.

These kinds of people have a conviction that will probably never be broken by standard police tactics and the more we stop the more they will become convinced of their cause.

So, to my point, I'm not 100% sure of the validity of the reports but I heard the Russians buried the Moscow Theatre abductors (Islamist Extremists) in pig skin because this, in the Muslim faith prevents that person from ascending to heaven.

So if these people use their faith to justify there actions and to give them reason for committing such atrocities, should we counter there actions by using another aspect of there religion against them.

We must admit one of the major reasons, if not the major reason for carrying out a suicide bomb attack is they believe they gain automatic access to paradise. If they thought they won’t get that because there bodies will be buried in pig skin, then will this fact make them think twice?

I know by doing this we could anger other people from the Muslim faith, but as these imams and clerics have said on many occasions, these people are not Muslims they do not represent the Muslim faith. There fore they cannot argue that fellow Muslims are being badly treated!



Counter arguments and views please?


If any suicide bombers are taken alive, hang, draw and quarter them publicly, and throw their remains to the pigs, whilst ever we treat them with respect and human rights, they will be contemptuous of us and all that we stand for, one has to fight these monsters by the same standards that they employ, a total disregard for rules of war and decency.

Originally posted by halevan
If any suicide bombers are taken alive, hang, draw and quarter them publicly, and throw their remains to the pigs, whilst ever we treat them with respect and human rights, they will be contemptuous of us and all that we stand for, one has to fight these monsters by the same standards that they employ, a total disregard for rules of war and decency.

Don't pussy foot about Albert, just say what you mean :P

Originally posted by halevan
If any suicide bombers are taken alive

!
:P

Originally posted by halevan
If any suicide bombers are taken alive...

They usually go to pieces long before they are caught.:P