According to the Wall Street Journal, page A9, 8-27/28-2016, there was a major development with the totalitarian religion of Islam. King Mohammed VI of Morocco is reported to have asked in an important speech on August 20 this: "Can anyone of sound mind believe that the reward for Jihad could be some virgins in Paradise? Is it conceivable that anyone who listens to music will be swallowed by the Earth?"
It is not conceivable to me that Muslims aren't demonstrating in the streets over those questions. Such blasphemy! Is it because the king is considered to be a direct heir of Mohammed, the founding prophet of Islam? Ever since the 8th Century, men have been giving their lives more willingly because of the promise of 72 virgins in Paradise. In fact, during battle Mohammed allegedly informed one of his trusted lieutenants of the sexual situation in heaven that he would earn if if he died in battle. The warrior wanted the virgins in perpetuity so much that he went directly to the front line of the battle and got himself killed. Of course. people believe that promise, as low brow and teenage as it is. Was the King really saying people shouldn't believe that there is such a heaven as well as saying they shouldn't believe music listeners would be swallowed by the earth? If he was saying that, I salute him, but where is the response from the Sharia Muslims? Why am I not reading on the Internet of any explosive and of course, threatening, responses to these remarks? Did the Wall Street Journal get it wrong? Or have Muslims all decided that describing a Paradise that sounds more like a whorehouse in the sky was too immature and have discarded it? So what are the Islamo- Fascists offering their suicide bombers now - a free trip to Disneyland before they blow others and themselves up? I don't think that's going to work.
I feel like I'm missing something here. Or was what the king of Morocco said planned deceit? In other words, "We believe in the great whorehouse in the sky and people listening to music being swallowed up by the earth, but we know it makes us look mad or hopelessly primitive to the modern world, so we are going to pretend to the modern world we don't believe in these things so we won't be institutionalized or ridiculed." In other words, is it just like the Arab States signing the United Nations Charter that they will respect the inviolable rights of individuals and then passing resolutions back home taking back those rights?
I can't believe I am so perceptive that there are no other comments about these two amazing things the king said, especially the abrogation of Islamic heaven. I must be missing a lot, but hope not.
Peter Nickerson, Philosophy Major, Class of '68, William and Mary
"The measure of a man,
Is not what he says,
But what he does,
And what he allows others,
To do in his presence."
- Navy Seal Instructor
"Free Will is your ability to be rational in spite of the irrational urges from your genes and your experiences."
- Peter Nickerson, Philosophy Major
Wednesday, August 31, 2016
Tuesday, August 30, 2016
Review of Sharia in Book, "Islam And Democracy" lll
Sharia Islam has a visceral rejection of the equality of human beings in direct violation of the United Nations Charter so instead of being honest, the Arab states, of course, lied by signing the charter and then erected national "reservations," and "amendments" to deny the provisions of the United Nations Charter. If they hadn't done that, these states would have appeared at the diplomatic level to have been primitive and savage, as they really were. So the representatives deceitfully and so manly signed on to the charter while their states negated everything they signed onto. Of course, the diplomats of the other countries were lazy or simply playing along in that they did not see what these states had done and confronted them at the United Nations about their dishonesty. This is only one example of how the Islamic states present a false face of modernity in New York but remain a slaughterhouse at home. Mernissi observes that the Arab nations use the United Nations for manipulation and hypocrisy. p 67
Recently, women have been using academics as a way to escape the harem condition and have taken to the streets to demonstrate. Mernissi applauds their lack of pretension and stilted language, which she finds are bothersome characteristics of the leftists. The educated women are demonstrating against the suffocating Sharia and are contrasting it to the United Nations Charter. The charter, though, has a Trojan Horse that Mernissi doesn't see apparently. It is that after all the rights of the individual are given in the document, there is an escape clause that these rights can be abrogated by the United Nations. They are not inalienable rights as the American Constitution recognizes rights to be. That is an enormous difference: the difference between everything and nothing. So the United Nations Charter has its own despicable, unmanly "reservation" or "amendment" that flushes civil rights down the toilet like a silly, little turd. Bye! Bye, rights! Weren't we clever despots! Amazing how stupid and unassertive people can be not to see our escape clause and kick our lying asses for it! p163
This does not mean Fatema Mernissi misses all the tricks and yes, buts. She catches on that the Islamic countries can declare that the hijab or face mask is mandatory and that will make more jobs available for men as many places will not employ those wearing the mask. Calling for the wearing of the face mask is also a signal that women working outside the home is not legitimate, and in the tyranny of Islam it is vital to recognize what the authorities are signaling before they institute their draconian punishments. Women will quit their jobs to go back to the harem, giving men more jobs. Finally, Mernissi recognizes that oil money has made possible the rigid authoritarianism that is deaf to compassion, a quality that is supposedly so important to Islam. She writes, "A better term for fundamentalism in Saudi Arabia would be petro-Wahhabism, whose pillar is the veiled woman." p166
Peter Nickerson, Philosophy Major, Class of '68, William and Mary
"The measure of a man,
Is not what he says,
But what he does,
And what he allows others.
To do in his presence."
- Navy Seal Instructor
"Free Will is your ability to be rational in spite of the irrational urges from your genes and your experiences."
-Peter Nickerson, Philosophy Major
Recently, women have been using academics as a way to escape the harem condition and have taken to the streets to demonstrate. Mernissi applauds their lack of pretension and stilted language, which she finds are bothersome characteristics of the leftists. The educated women are demonstrating against the suffocating Sharia and are contrasting it to the United Nations Charter. The charter, though, has a Trojan Horse that Mernissi doesn't see apparently. It is that after all the rights of the individual are given in the document, there is an escape clause that these rights can be abrogated by the United Nations. They are not inalienable rights as the American Constitution recognizes rights to be. That is an enormous difference: the difference between everything and nothing. So the United Nations Charter has its own despicable, unmanly "reservation" or "amendment" that flushes civil rights down the toilet like a silly, little turd. Bye! Bye, rights! Weren't we clever despots! Amazing how stupid and unassertive people can be not to see our escape clause and kick our lying asses for it! p163
This does not mean Fatema Mernissi misses all the tricks and yes, buts. She catches on that the Islamic countries can declare that the hijab or face mask is mandatory and that will make more jobs available for men as many places will not employ those wearing the mask. Calling for the wearing of the face mask is also a signal that women working outside the home is not legitimate, and in the tyranny of Islam it is vital to recognize what the authorities are signaling before they institute their draconian punishments. Women will quit their jobs to go back to the harem, giving men more jobs. Finally, Mernissi recognizes that oil money has made possible the rigid authoritarianism that is deaf to compassion, a quality that is supposedly so important to Islam. She writes, "A better term for fundamentalism in Saudi Arabia would be petro-Wahhabism, whose pillar is the veiled woman." p166
Peter Nickerson, Philosophy Major, Class of '68, William and Mary
"The measure of a man,
Is not what he says,
But what he does,
And what he allows others.
To do in his presence."
- Navy Seal Instructor
"Free Will is your ability to be rational in spite of the irrational urges from your genes and your experiences."
-Peter Nickerson, Philosophy Major
Review of Sharia in Book, "Islam And Democracy"lll
Sharia Islam has a visceral rejection of the equality of human beings in direct violation of the United Nations Charter so instead of being honest, the Arab states, of course, lied by signing the charter and erecting national "reservations," and "amendments" to deny the provisions of the United Nations Charter. If they hadn't done that, these states would have appeared at the diplomatic level to have been primitive and savage, as they really were. So the representatives deceitfully and so manly signed on to the charter while their states negated everything they signed onto. Of course, the diplomats were lazy or simply playing along in that they did not see what these states had done and confronted them at the United Nations about their dishonesty. This is only one example of how the Islamic states present a false face of modernity in New York but remain a slaughterhouse at home. Mernissi observes that the Arab nations use the United Nations for manipulation and hypocrisy. p 67
Recently, women have been using academics as a way to escape the harem condition and have taken to the streets to demonstrate. Mernissi applauds their lack of pretension and stilted language, marks of the Marxists. The educated women are demonstrating against suffocating Sharia and are contrasting it to the United Nations Charter. The charter has a Trojan Horse that Mernissi doesn't advise us of. It is that after all the rights of the individual are given there is the caveat that these rights can be abrogated by the state. They are not inalienable rights as the American Constitution recognizes. That is an enormous difference: the difference between everything and nothing. So the United Nations Charter has its own despicable, unmanly "reservation" or "amendment" that flushes human civil rights down the toilet like a little turd. Bye! Bye, rights! Weren't we despots clever! Amazing how stupid and unassertive people can be not to see our escape clause and kick our lying asses! p163
This does not mean Fatema Mernissi misses all the tricks and yes, buts. She catches on that the Islamic countries can declare that the hijab or face mask is mandatory and that will make more jobs available for men as many places will not employ those wearing the mask. Calling for the wearing of the face mask is also a signal that women working outside the home is not legitimate, and in the tyranny of Islam it is vital to recognize what the authorities are signaling before they institute their draconian punishments. Finally, Mernissi recognizes that oil money has made possible the rigid authoritarianism that is deaf to compassion.
She writes, "A better term for fundamentalism in Saudi Arabia would be petro-Wahhabism, whose pillar is the veiled woman."
Recently, women have been using academics as a way to escape the harem condition and have taken to the streets to demonstrate. Mernissi applauds their lack of pretension and stilted language, marks of the Marxists. The educated women are demonstrating against suffocating Sharia and are contrasting it to the United Nations Charter. The charter has a Trojan Horse that Mernissi doesn't advise us of. It is that after all the rights of the individual are given there is the caveat that these rights can be abrogated by the state. They are not inalienable rights as the American Constitution recognizes. That is an enormous difference: the difference between everything and nothing. So the United Nations Charter has its own despicable, unmanly "reservation" or "amendment" that flushes human civil rights down the toilet like a little turd. Bye! Bye, rights! Weren't we despots clever! Amazing how stupid and unassertive people can be not to see our escape clause and kick our lying asses! p163
This does not mean Fatema Mernissi misses all the tricks and yes, buts. She catches on that the Islamic countries can declare that the hijab or face mask is mandatory and that will make more jobs available for men as many places will not employ those wearing the mask. Calling for the wearing of the face mask is also a signal that women working outside the home is not legitimate, and in the tyranny of Islam it is vital to recognize what the authorities are signaling before they institute their draconian punishments. Finally, Mernissi recognizes that oil money has made possible the rigid authoritarianism that is deaf to compassion.
She writes, "A better term for fundamentalism in Saudi Arabia would be petro-Wahhabism, whose pillar is the veiled woman."
Monday, August 29, 2016
A Review of Sharia in "Islam And Democracy" Part ll
In the time of the Mutazila, the time of reason, peace, and intellectual advances ended with the Abbasid dynasty embracing sharia and stripping it of it's questioning, speculative dimension and imams became blood-thirsty tyrants. Reasoning died to mean faith wielded by a tyrannical sharia. pp 36-7
Sharia became a strict interpretation based on Allah's revealed knowledge in the Arabic language only. This continued to weld reason and personal opinion -thinking aloud- to charges that these activities were weakening Islam and aiding the enemy. p 39 Since these activities were not discussed in Islamic culture, when other Western ideas were brought to the Islam world such as democracy and constitutions, the Islamic people weren't prepared for them and these ideas were rejected and suppressed by the imams.p 48
Mernissi says the the Koran is for Islam what the United Nations Charter is for democracy. She is wrong for the United States is the fountainhead and main supporter of democracy, but let us go on with Mernissi. She says this charter is a superlaw that gives citizens the freedom to think. We Americans say that is an inalienable right. It comes before birth, and is a part of our being, not something that a mere and pompous government confers upon us. Then she says that sharia condemns freedom of thought. This is another vindication of what I have told you: Sharia means death. In this example, it kills even an unborn baby, and demands that he come out of the womb brain-dead, and like a robot do and "think" only what the total war religion of Sharia Islam tells him to do and think.
He has no freedom to have thoughts. His thoughts are what he's told to think. Is this your idea of yourself - as Sharia's brain-dead person who will be guided not by your own thoughts, not by rationality, but by dictates commanded by force including torture and death. If Sharia Islam is so good, so perfect, why does it have to spread by force, by the sword? If it were really a good religion, wouldn't people flock to it willingly? God knows, the world is certainly aware of Sharia!
If it's good, its goodness will speak to all of us, far and wide. It will not need force or the sword. It needs force and the sword, and the gun and the cowardly bomb that kills innocents because Sharia is bad and despicable! That is why!
Peter Nickerson, Philosophy Major, Class of '68, William and Mary.
"The measure of a man,
Is not what he says,
But what he does,
And allows others to do,
In his presence."
- Navy Seal Instructor
"Your free will is your ability to be rational in spite of your genes and your
experiences including the one you are having right now." Peter Nickerson, William and Mary Philosophy Major.
P.S. I know we use the bomb that kills innocents too. If you read me, You know I don't support drone use that kills innocents. As far as trying to take back cities from ISIS using bombs, I wonder instead about alternative methods such a war between snipers - but then how do you defend your soldiers against the bombs from ISIS? - and I think about other weapons hinted at in the Wall Street Journal as a pulse gun. But I read there that the Red Cross is against them. If they work, why don't we have the spine to use them anyway? Is it because our president is best understood as an Iranian Islamist? Are our military-industrial-government people against less lethal, more discriminate ways to wage war? Why do our whistle-blowers suffer so much, and why is there less transparency after whistle-blowers blow? We are not perfect, but we have the freedom to think and question what the powerful are doing, and change what they are doing through voting. Sharia Islam does not have that. We are largely self-correcting. Sharia is not. It is still back in the most barbaric part of the Medieval Times and is trying to remain there. Its only defense of itself is death. It can't defend itself except through the death spectrum - frowns, warnings, insults, violence, torture, mutilations, and finally the end of the spectrum: death. It has to conquer the world to survive- to quell all dissent, all freedom of thought. I pity you.
Sharia became a strict interpretation based on Allah's revealed knowledge in the Arabic language only. This continued to weld reason and personal opinion -thinking aloud- to charges that these activities were weakening Islam and aiding the enemy. p 39 Since these activities were not discussed in Islamic culture, when other Western ideas were brought to the Islam world such as democracy and constitutions, the Islamic people weren't prepared for them and these ideas were rejected and suppressed by the imams.p 48
Mernissi says the the Koran is for Islam what the United Nations Charter is for democracy. She is wrong for the United States is the fountainhead and main supporter of democracy, but let us go on with Mernissi. She says this charter is a superlaw that gives citizens the freedom to think. We Americans say that is an inalienable right. It comes before birth, and is a part of our being, not something that a mere and pompous government confers upon us. Then she says that sharia condemns freedom of thought. This is another vindication of what I have told you: Sharia means death. In this example, it kills even an unborn baby, and demands that he come out of the womb brain-dead, and like a robot do and "think" only what the total war religion of Sharia Islam tells him to do and think.
He has no freedom to have thoughts. His thoughts are what he's told to think. Is this your idea of yourself - as Sharia's brain-dead person who will be guided not by your own thoughts, not by rationality, but by dictates commanded by force including torture and death. If Sharia Islam is so good, so perfect, why does it have to spread by force, by the sword? If it were really a good religion, wouldn't people flock to it willingly? God knows, the world is certainly aware of Sharia!
If it's good, its goodness will speak to all of us, far and wide. It will not need force or the sword. It needs force and the sword, and the gun and the cowardly bomb that kills innocents because Sharia is bad and despicable! That is why!
Peter Nickerson, Philosophy Major, Class of '68, William and Mary.
"The measure of a man,
Is not what he says,
But what he does,
And allows others to do,
In his presence."
- Navy Seal Instructor
"Your free will is your ability to be rational in spite of your genes and your
experiences including the one you are having right now." Peter Nickerson, William and Mary Philosophy Major.
P.S. I know we use the bomb that kills innocents too. If you read me, You know I don't support drone use that kills innocents. As far as trying to take back cities from ISIS using bombs, I wonder instead about alternative methods such a war between snipers - but then how do you defend your soldiers against the bombs from ISIS? - and I think about other weapons hinted at in the Wall Street Journal as a pulse gun. But I read there that the Red Cross is against them. If they work, why don't we have the spine to use them anyway? Is it because our president is best understood as an Iranian Islamist? Are our military-industrial-government people against less lethal, more discriminate ways to wage war? Why do our whistle-blowers suffer so much, and why is there less transparency after whistle-blowers blow? We are not perfect, but we have the freedom to think and question what the powerful are doing, and change what they are doing through voting. Sharia Islam does not have that. We are largely self-correcting. Sharia is not. It is still back in the most barbaric part of the Medieval Times and is trying to remain there. Its only defense of itself is death. It can't defend itself except through the death spectrum - frowns, warnings, insults, violence, torture, mutilations, and finally the end of the spectrum: death. It has to conquer the world to survive- to quell all dissent, all freedom of thought. I pity you.
Thursday, August 25, 2016
Pigs and Islamist Terrorists lll
In 1682 and again in 1683, French Admiral Abraham Duquesne visited Algiers with a new and terrible weapon, the mortar. The French consul in town, an old, saintly Vincentine priest by the name of Jean Le Vacher was not able to persuade the French admiral to stop the bombing. He only promised to returned the next year. He returned the second time with the intention of destroying Algiers. His presence caused a shakeup in the government of the town, and the new dey or governor was the captain of the galleys, Mezzo Morto. He warned the French admiral that every Frenchman in town, beginning with the saintly Jean Le Vacher would be strapped across the muzzle of a huge cannon and the cannon fired if the French admiral did not leave. The admiral began using the terrifying mortars, and the dey began having Frenchman splayed across the huge cannon and splattered into the bay. About twenty innocent French were killed by the murderous Muslims using the mouth of the cannon. The gunner, a renegade from Holland, who actually fired the cruel cannon reportedly suffered from nightmares the rest of his life.
This could be one of the unintended consequences of decapitating captured Muslim terrorists. The issue of whether someone could do such bloody executions without suffering PTSD would have to be addressed. Is this why the Muslim terrorists like beheading their prisoners- because to other Muslims it means that that person is not going to Paradise if he were a Muslim? If it is, the West may have a tool for the war on Muslim terrorism if we have the resolve to use it on them. It will only take a couple of suicide bombings in America, before we Americans will be strong enough to do it. Again we have a great responsibility to the Special Forces, whom I give the alternate title of the Wolverines, because of their great courage, ferocity, determination, endurance, and the love they have for their children. We do not want to cripple the Wolverines in their service to the country and their buddies whom they depend upon for their lives. All too often in the military being macho gets confused with being stupid. For example, I give you the" clank-clank, I'm a tank" mentality.That mentality was dead set against the autonomy and improvisation of the special operator. The tankers held to a rigid central command and control format which was way too slow and uninformed by today's fluid battlefield. Having Special Forces and other military groups performing beheadings needs study to be sure we're not asking our men and women to lose their minds doing it.
Peter Nickerson, Philosophy Major, Class of '68, William and Mary
References:
1. The Pirates of Barbary (2010) by Adrian Tinniswood
2. The Wolverine Way (2010) by Douglas Chadwick
"The measure of a man
Is not what he says,
But what he does,
And what he allows others
To do in his presence."
-Navy Seal Instructor
This could be one of the unintended consequences of decapitating captured Muslim terrorists. The issue of whether someone could do such bloody executions without suffering PTSD would have to be addressed. Is this why the Muslim terrorists like beheading their prisoners- because to other Muslims it means that that person is not going to Paradise if he were a Muslim? If it is, the West may have a tool for the war on Muslim terrorism if we have the resolve to use it on them. It will only take a couple of suicide bombings in America, before we Americans will be strong enough to do it. Again we have a great responsibility to the Special Forces, whom I give the alternate title of the Wolverines, because of their great courage, ferocity, determination, endurance, and the love they have for their children. We do not want to cripple the Wolverines in their service to the country and their buddies whom they depend upon for their lives. All too often in the military being macho gets confused with being stupid. For example, I give you the" clank-clank, I'm a tank" mentality.That mentality was dead set against the autonomy and improvisation of the special operator. The tankers held to a rigid central command and control format which was way too slow and uninformed by today's fluid battlefield. Having Special Forces and other military groups performing beheadings needs study to be sure we're not asking our men and women to lose their minds doing it.
Peter Nickerson, Philosophy Major, Class of '68, William and Mary
References:
1. The Pirates of Barbary (2010) by Adrian Tinniswood
2. The Wolverine Way (2010) by Douglas Chadwick
"The measure of a man
Is not what he says,
But what he does,
And what he allows others
To do in his presence."
-Navy Seal Instructor
Wednesday, August 24, 2016
Pigs and Islamist Terrorists ll
Serendipitously, I found another alleged way to stop attacks by Islamists. I read this last night in Adrian Tinniswood's Pirates of Barbary: Corsairs, Conquests, and Captivity in the 17th -Century Mediterranean, and it began with "The Moroccan qaid, or chieftain, Umar ben Haddu, was camped with an army of 7,000 men less than a mile from town, and his troops were digging a network of trenches and cross-trenches which was coming closer and closer to the forts that defended the English lines....Just before dawn the Moors retreated without having managed to breach the wall, and Wilson, still not daring to open the gates of the fort, let down five men on ropes to clear away the timber seigeworks and burn them. They also decapitated two of the corpses left behind by Umar's army and raised the heads on poles 'in sight of the Moorish camp, which all of the nation hold for the greatest indignity that can be put upon them, because according to their Mahometan superstition, they hold that when they die, their bodies immediately are translated into paradise, but if they are dismembered they can in no wise enter.'"
To a literalist, this is confusing: the Muslims' head weren't severed immediately so they are already in the supposed great whorehouse in the sky by the time the English dared to get to their dead bodies the next day. So why bother to decapitate them and display their heads? Is it possible they were hoping that the Muslims would think their comrades had been killed by decapitation and therefore weren't going to the whorehouse in the sky?
But this may give us something to use. If it is true that death by decapitation denies entrance into the Great Whorehouse In The Sky, we can exploit this by killing and decapitating Islamic terrorists and putting the proceedings on YouTube videos for the world to see. Instead of sending drones with missiles that kill innocents- a grievous wrong as well as a huge mistake as it causes hate for us all over the world [Is this why President Obama insists on using drones over Special Forces?] and it increases the recruitment of terrorists, we can send in Special Forces where possible. Special Forces shoot as accurately kill and discriminately as man can, and they can possibly capture or wound the terrorists, decapitate them, record the proceedings and put the videos on YouTube as proof. Then ISIS and all the other Muslim terrorist groups could no longer guarantee their fighters paradise if they were killed in jihad. This should make jihad dramatically less appetizing.
Reference: Pirates of Barbary (2010) by Adrian Tinniswood. pages 217-8.
Peter Nickerson, Philosophy Major, Class of '68, William and Mary
"The measure of a man,
Is not what he says,
But what he does,
And what he allows others,
To do in his presence."
-Navy Seal Instructor
To a literalist, this is confusing: the Muslims' head weren't severed immediately so they are already in the supposed great whorehouse in the sky by the time the English dared to get to their dead bodies the next day. So why bother to decapitate them and display their heads? Is it possible they were hoping that the Muslims would think their comrades had been killed by decapitation and therefore weren't going to the whorehouse in the sky?
But this may give us something to use. If it is true that death by decapitation denies entrance into the Great Whorehouse In The Sky, we can exploit this by killing and decapitating Islamic terrorists and putting the proceedings on YouTube videos for the world to see. Instead of sending drones with missiles that kill innocents- a grievous wrong as well as a huge mistake as it causes hate for us all over the world [Is this why President Obama insists on using drones over Special Forces?] and it increases the recruitment of terrorists, we can send in Special Forces where possible. Special Forces shoot as accurately kill and discriminately as man can, and they can possibly capture or wound the terrorists, decapitate them, record the proceedings and put the videos on YouTube as proof. Then ISIS and all the other Muslim terrorist groups could no longer guarantee their fighters paradise if they were killed in jihad. This should make jihad dramatically less appetizing.
Reference: Pirates of Barbary (2010) by Adrian Tinniswood. pages 217-8.
Peter Nickerson, Philosophy Major, Class of '68, William and Mary
"The measure of a man,
Is not what he says,
But what he does,
And what he allows others,
To do in his presence."
-Navy Seal Instructor
Tuesday, August 23, 2016
Pigs and Islamists
Having seen how government employees and their lackeys, by and large, the professionals, handled the question of the panthers' existence including the black panther in both Florida and Vermont, I am skeptical of any statements from them, especially ones that also deride anyone with contrary thoughts as happened in Florida. It did not happen in Vermont, by the way. Vermonters were very polite and much more reflective. Hence, I'm going to open the old question of whether pigs will deter Islamic violence. I have great respect for people on the front lines particularly versus the pompous blowhards at their desks with their degrees on the walls. In looking at some of the Internet comments about this topic, I saw one allegedly from a soldier who claimed that when he was serving in Iraq, he was asked by the Iraqi if his bullets were tipped with pig blood.
Supposedly, Army Colonel Alexander Rodgers under General Pershing in 1911 used pig parts usefully to deter the fanatical, and all too successful swordsmen, the Juramentos, in the Philippines. More recently, an Israeli official is said to have suggested pig use.
There seems to be no deterrent for Islamic suicide bombers especially when the explosives can be carried beneath a woman's body bag. At this point, training Labradors to detect them by smell seems the best detection, leading one to think that the responsible citizens now needs not only to carry a gun and knife and be trained in the martial arts and weight lifting, but also to be accompanied by a lab trained in explosives detection. I wonder if a Muslim suicide bomber knew his remains would be buried in a pigskin sack, if that would that make him wonder if he were really going to that supposed giant whorehouse in the sky and thus cause him to stop his plans or even give him some hesitation and unease so his stress might be visible out on the street as he was about to blow himself up as well as kill - what was the latest one, 51 people enjoying a wedding?- and mutilating many others.
If this is going to provoke the sniffers and the screamers, bring it. I'll love it. But if anyone has anything that is evidence-oriented that pigs would be effective against Islamist suicide bombers, I'd like to see it in my comments section of this blog.
Thanks.
Peter Nickerson, Philosophy Major, Class of '68, William and Mary
"The measure of a man,
Is not what he says,
But what he does,
And what he allows others,
To do in his presence."
-Navy Seal Instructor
Supposedly, Army Colonel Alexander Rodgers under General Pershing in 1911 used pig parts usefully to deter the fanatical, and all too successful swordsmen, the Juramentos, in the Philippines. More recently, an Israeli official is said to have suggested pig use.
There seems to be no deterrent for Islamic suicide bombers especially when the explosives can be carried beneath a woman's body bag. At this point, training Labradors to detect them by smell seems the best detection, leading one to think that the responsible citizens now needs not only to carry a gun and knife and be trained in the martial arts and weight lifting, but also to be accompanied by a lab trained in explosives detection. I wonder if a Muslim suicide bomber knew his remains would be buried in a pigskin sack, if that would that make him wonder if he were really going to that supposed giant whorehouse in the sky and thus cause him to stop his plans or even give him some hesitation and unease so his stress might be visible out on the street as he was about to blow himself up as well as kill - what was the latest one, 51 people enjoying a wedding?- and mutilating many others.
If this is going to provoke the sniffers and the screamers, bring it. I'll love it. But if anyone has anything that is evidence-oriented that pigs would be effective against Islamist suicide bombers, I'd like to see it in my comments section of this blog.
Thanks.
Peter Nickerson, Philosophy Major, Class of '68, William and Mary
"The measure of a man,
Is not what he says,
But what he does,
And what he allows others,
To do in his presence."
-Navy Seal Instructor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)