this is in response to a post by John I. Fleming on the thread "Jihad Solution". the solution that he advocates, and the rest of his comments are so interesting that i thought they deserved a new thread.
Fleming begins by applauding General Pershing for executing Filipino Muslims with bullets rolled in pork fat, wrapping their corpses in hog skins, decorating their graves with hog entrails, and finally releasing a few of the captives to tell this gruesome story to the rest of the community. his contention is that "Moslems will not eat pork believing that no one could enter Paradise if there is even the smallest amount of swine flesh in their bodies." therefore, Pershing's actions robbed his victims of martyrdom, and acted as a deterrent.
i pointed out the incredible ignorance of this interpretation; it's based on the idea that Islam is a religion based on inflexible axioms, like "if there's swine flesh in you body, you won't go to heaven." i am a Muslim. i have eaten pork on more than one occasion. for instance, about three years ago, during the holiday season, Scarborough General Hospital threw a Christmas party for its volunteers (including myself), and i unthinkingly gobbled down a slice of pepperoni pizza. i found out afterwards, but it was really no big deal, since i've always been taught that if you eat it without knowing what it is, it's not your fault! however, Mr Fleming can test his hypothesis by asking any Muslim over the age of 8, "if somebody shoots you with pork fat and covers your corpse with the body parts of a pig, can you still go to heaven?" try it. just as the bloodthirsty version of Islam espoused by terrorists exists only in the minds of Muslim mass-murderers, the stereotypically primitive version of Islam in which Fleming believes exists only in the wet dreams of ignoramuses.
besides this, i think that it's absolutely fascinating to see some of his comments juxtaposed with one another, and with my comments. the results are sometimes baffling.
have a look at this...in the following quotation, Fleming seems to denounce the kind of genocidal policy directed against the people of Iraq by the US:
Shall we build a Berlin Wall around every democracy in the world until the fundamentalists are all dead, their children die of starvation, pestilence and disease ravages their countries? Do we leave them to what they want, what they have been seeking; self autonomy, with no outside interference?
Do we ban all communication with them until they become democratic and respective of human rights?
This approach will not just kill the terrorists, it will kill women and children in the tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions.
but as it turns out, he is not denouncing an approach that will lead to the deaths of "women and children in the tens of millions" at all. indeed, he apparently believes that this kind of genocide would be beneficial to his final solution:
As for my solution, I would put up the walls of ignorance to the dictatorships, military governments and communist regimes in this world. That's right, I said ignorance. Ignorance to their plight, ignorance to well being.
No more immigration; no more international aid; no more protection from their neighbours; no nothing.
or perhaps he doesn't see the cause-and-effect relationship between his two statements, and the similarity between the Berlin Wall that he denounces, and the Wall of Ignorance that he advocates. this is quite incredible, but let me explain it to you, Mr Fleming; ignorance toward the plight of innocent civilians living under brutal regimes will lead to their deaths. ignorance towards their well-being will destroy their well-being. no more immigration, no more aid, no compassion will kill them. it will not make them sympathetic to you. a starving population cannot "fight tyrants and bring themselves into the world community in peace," and to try to force them into doing so by slaughtering them with your ignorance, is terrorism.
in short, Mr Fleming's solution is sickening, but i don't believe that it's really feasible to have a rational debate with someone who vocally advocates ignorance ("That's right, I said ignorance"!), and who seems to be a victim of the wall of ignorance that he has built around himself.
this is somewhat serendipitous, but, in his ignorance, Fleming has the Filipino terrorists shout "Allah Achbar! Allah Achbar!" instead of "Allahu Akbar" ("God is the greatest"). if it is, as i suspect, a German "ch/kh" being used here, Fleming's novel transliteration, "Allah Akhbar" means "God is news," akhbaar being the plural of the singular khabr, "a piece of news". it really cracked me up when i read it. furthermore, in Urdu, the term "be khabr" (lit. "without news") actually means "ignorant". how deliciously ironic.