Why don't we use terror against the terrorist?

Question

If the overwhelming majority of terrorist are muslim; and muslims' hate swine; Why don't we (The Allies) dip our rounds (ammo) in pigs blood? I can not think of anything that Soooo frightens them as the thought of them being killed by a bullet laden with the blood of a filthy pig! Just think about it..... No greetings from Allah......No 72 virgins......et al. Al jezeera would be reporting that recruitment was at a all time low.
I say it is time to strike back.......what say you ? Please....no terrorist !! We know what your answer to this would be.

Answer 1

First off the guy that said look up the Sopey Rebellion is way wrong about the context and the way you wish to us it. Yes they were upset about it but they where tricked into doing biting the bullets not trying to stop extremist from their guerrilla warfare.
Now I have asked about this same question and i have looked up allot of information and from what i have gathered it is more a myth that touching pork/swine is a hell worthy sin. It is more of a tradition like for Catholic and lent. If you don't give something up for that time will you go to hell. I would hope not.
To me a better way of going about stopping the Insurgents would be more of a "Total War" like a Shermans March were we hold the townspeople accountable for harboring the insurgents. We should use tactical nuclear war heads to make glass out of the towns that make safe houses for the terrorist. Now some people say because "we are the good guys" well that's just not the war you defeat the enemy.

Well i hope i helped or gave you some other ideas take care.

101st abn

*** Oh look i made some one upset***
http://www.english.emory.edu/Bahri/Mutiny.html
I read this and other sources on the Internet. The problem with this war not that animal grease was in the bullets but it was the fact the Brits were not prepared to fight this war. It had nothing to do with stopping an insurgence and that guy wants to say that the whole war was about the bullets. He doesn't want to say it was about how the British were oppressing the Indian people much like the way that they were doing to us here in 1776. He doesn't say that the Brits were persecuting them from their freedoms at all to him is so simple it was all about the grease in the bullets. Well I guess he has all the answers and he would probly say the The American Revolution was about tea too. Man what a moron.

Answer 2

I too have read the apophrycal anecdote about Muslim rebels in the Philippines being executed with bullets dipped in pig's blood.

It's utter nonsense - nobody's bothered to cite any reliable sources. Now assuming you started shooting Islamic terrorists with bullets dipped in pig's blood and fat, would that really stop them? While it's true that Muslims don't normally eat pigs, the idea that eating a pork chop, let alone being shot with a bullet someone else immersed in pig blood would prevent you from going to heaven on the spot is nothing short of ludicrous.

I'd hardly consider that terrorism anyway. But even if it was, terrorising terrorists isn't necessarily going to work. Look at all the terrorist groups of Northern Island during the troubled years - they'd beat, bomb and blast the crap out of each other, only to have the same thing done to them with equal ferocity.

If you really want to deal with Muslims terrorists for good, alienate them from their support base. All these crazy ideas of dipping bullets in blood are nonsense voodoo tactics, somewhere up there with heads impaled on pikes and Heinrich Himmler's occult rituals.

Answer 3

Because
1. the terrorists would adapt, and some Imams would just put out a Fatwa saying pork soaked bullets don't stop you from going to heaven
2. You anger the non-terrorist muslim population, creating more terrorists (look up the sepoy rebellion).
3. You drive up pork prices, which directly affect the price of my morning bacon, which already costs too much.

==Edit==
Not sure why you say the context is wrong, 101st, it is directly applicable to this question. Regardless of whether or not the Muslims (and Hindu) were trickled, the response is the important thing, and it was not favorable to this idea.

Answer 4

About 200 years ago the white man came to America and ran off the Indians. Now, the Indians seem to be taking back what was once theres, and they've got a few friends (people from other foreign countries)

Answer 5

Probably because it would tick off the Muslims in whole and turn it into a holy war instead of just the US tracking down common criminals using religion as a way to get away with their crimes.

Answer 6

Because we are supposed to be the good guys.....and if we use thier weapons agianst them, that cheapens us and would you want to be thought of the same way as them?
Though I will admit to a few less than noble thoughts that way...and forget the virgins, 72 virginians

Answer 7

I think it would have been a better way to handle it then an all out war. You can not fight terrorism with a regular war.
I think that terrorism should fall under security in the US.
If you think about it we were over there meddling in there countries first.
I think we should get out, get off of there oil and secure our country. if we fight this war for 100 more years it will be the same thing.
We need to worry about our freedom not there's.
We have been so worried about this war and the terrorist that we are about to loose our own freedom.

Answer 8

We are better than the terrorists

Answer 9

Why don't we use terror against the terrorists? Because we're still practicing by using it on our own people. Only
once we've perfected our technique will we use it on others.

Answer 10

That is one way to get attention.