Would it be wrong to have a policy that suicide terrorists inspired in part by certain religious beliefs would not be respectfully buried in accordance with their beliefs and customs (but would instead be fed to pigs, or ground up and mixed with pig manure, or some equivalent that would theoretically reduce their chances of achieving a wonderful eternity?

Would that lower us to their level? Should we just continue with our current policy?

Black Jack Pershing :



http://urbanlegends.about.com/librar...k_pershing.htm

Yet another account, from the 1938 book Jungle Patrol, attributes the deed to someone other than Pershing:

It was Colonel Alexander Rodgers of the 6th Cavalry who accomplished by taking advantage of religious prejudice what the bayonets and Krags had been unable to accomplish. Rodgers inaugurated a system of burying all dead juramentados in a common grave with the carcasses of slaughtered pigs. The Mohammedan religion forbids contact with pork; and this relatively simple device resulted in the withdrawal of juramentados to sections not containing a Rodgers. Other officers took up the principle, adding new refinements to make it additionally unattractive to the Moros. In some sections the Moro juramentado was beheaded after death and the head sewn inside the carcass of a pig. And so the rite of running juramentado, at least semi-religious in character, ceased to be in Sulu. The last cases of this religious mania occurred in the early decades of the century. The juramentados were replaced by the amucks ... who were simply homicidal maniacs with no religious significance attaching to their acts.

Does it help that I know you are american just from the stupidity of the question and the usage of 'our'.

You know there are other people on the planet right?


To kind of answer the question, I'd rather desecrate the living then the dead.
Everything is energy vibrating at different frequencies.
There are enough mind games flying around, adding to it will make things worse.

I

I think we should be brutal with people who violently push philosophies similar to Nazism, and want to impose them on the world aggressively and indiscriminately. And no, that doesn't bring you to their level. Anyone who says it does, is not worth listening to on any topic. Meeting oppressive indiscriminate aggression with targeted brutality against the aggressors probably does more good for the world than bad. Most of the horrors of World War 2 were enabled by people who were soft touches against nasty ideologies. ISIS thrived and grew to oppress millions of people in an area the size of England because Obama slinked away from facing nasty ideologies with military force. So no, I don't think it's morally wrong.

There's this strange idea that if we're just nice to people that have philosophies and political ideologies just like the Nazis, they'll be nice back and not want to kill us or enslave us. Most people who hold that belief it have never left the safe and comfortable West. A similar thing happened in WWII with appeasement of Hitler. People are stupid.

As for your idea, I don't think it's a good idea. Although similar concepts can be effective. It's hilarious reading about ISIS and female Pershmerga, for example.

Finally, I'd suggest lightening up a bit. I know it makes you mad, especially when liberals including world leaders tell barefaced lies about the nature of Islam (the majority of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims are vilely sexist, over half are religious fascists, wanting to impose a disgustingly oppressive and bigoted religious legal system, and over 1/3 want death for apostates), but getting upset about things you can't change is counterproductive. Be happy and enjoy living in a world that's really quite civilized and safe thanks to Westerners and their philosophies. We could live in an awful world, ruled by Islam - which we may do, one day, if the West keeps importing Muslims - or a barbaric one. But for now, things are good.

OK

Well, you'd affirm their beliefs if nothing else. Not all them, just some prejudices. Also, most violent extremist Muslims are jihadists. They believe they die as martyrs, "shahid".

So essentially you'd walk right into the playbook of their demagogues and do nothing to scare anyone of.

Don't mistake fighting an idea for fighting people. It is not always the same, and if you treat them as such you will lose.

Absolutely, it's the reasons for being brutal that make all the difference.

Ah, right, gotcha, thanks.

Yeah, look at all the idiots who thought that they could affect change through peaceful methods, like Gandhi, Shakyamuni Buddha, Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King. Fools. All they managed to do was... er.. peacefully achieve radical and far reaching change in the face of violent opposition.

Hmmm.

Here's a link to a video of an intelligent and compassionate KKK member (ex) who was changed by the stupid peaceful methods of one black minister. #meetviolencewithviolence

Holy cherry picking batman. With the exception of Buddha, all of these were protests against the rules and actions of post-Enlightenment Western Civilization. How well do you think nonviolent protests did in the Middle East over the past 1400 years? Most of the time, you'd be executed. If Ghandi tried in Persia what he did under the British, he'd be publicly flogged and then executed.

How well did nonviolent protests do in Syria? Iraq? Iran? China? Russia? They were all brutally crushed, both directly and behind the scenes (with activists thrown in gulags and their families harassed or imprisoned as well). How well do you think it did against the Nazis (most of Islam is as religiously fascist as Nazism was politically fascist, right down to gay and Jew hating). A good portion of Muslims - more than 20% - believe you deserve death for drawing the prophet. Do you think nonviolent protest works against people with such deeply evil, anti-freedom beliefs? It won't work any more than it worked against the Nazis or the communists or the clerics, or anyone with a (politically or religiously) fascist ideology.

Why can't you just think a little instead of posting childishly sarcastic babble?

Do you think it's a coincidence that nearly all the successful nonviolent protests have been against the practices of post enlightenment Western civilizations, and have failed nearly everywhere else in the world, and throughout most of history?
Hmmmm indeed.

Yes let's all love each other and the bad ideologies will go away. Your mind is completely skewed from living in a prosperous and open minded secular state. Most of the world doesn't work like that; it responds to strength and grows in the face of weakness.

Well, OP's notion rests on the idea that Muslims believe post-mortem desecration would actually bar them from heaven. I'm reasonably sure this isn't true.

It isn't. A lot of Muslims will see it as a blasphemous act (yes, even if they hate these guys as much as anyone), so if nothing else you might increase the recruitment pool for the terrorists you are trying to hurt a little. A bit like how pictures of some Pakistani mob burning an American flag would cause some minute political shifts in the US (presumably).

Again, people are confusing fighting an idea with hurting the people who stand for it. To apply this as general principle is a terrible, terrible idea. To fight an idea you need to make it unpopular. That sometimes means fighting its proponents, but certainly not indiscriminately. You certainly have to avoid making yourself look like the exact caricature this idea is trying to make you out to be.

If a guy accuses you of being a big dumb bully, you aren't resolving that by flooring him. If an Islamist extremist group is accusing you of being blasphemous and an affront to "Islam", you aren't resolving that by desecrating corpses.

Lexovix,

lol.

Prions.