July 01, 2012
Whatever one’s views on today’s Middle Eastern regimes, we can all agree that violent rioting is not a system of governance. But how can raucous street demonstrations be prevented from deteriorating into endless anarchy? The existing methods of suppression are clearly insufficient. Deadly force quickly produces martyrs and often only exacerbates violence. Nor are tear gas, rubber bullets, or truncheons particularly effective. Demonstrators retreat momentarily, regroup, and then pelt police with rocks and Molotov cocktails. This can continue for days, even months. And forget about Mace and Tasers for large crowds. Angry mobs should be able to express their discontent but at some point, enough is enough and politics should replace street violence.
Let me suggest a cheap, nonviolent way to control fanatical Muslims with an appetite for nonstop turmoil”weaponized pork. Muslims hate pork. Merely mentioning pork, let alone physical contact with it, strikes terror into the hearts of even the most committed “living martyr.” When confronting rioting Islamic fundamentalists, pork is perfect.
The beauty of pork-based riot control is its incredible flexibility. For all-purpose crowd dispersal, shotgun shells could be loaded up with bacon bits. Such “pigshot” could quickly break up rowdy demonstrators without harming a flea, let alone damaging the environment. Tanks could be modified into mobile Chinese field kitchens, complete with a traditional large exterior ventilating circular fan. When the enemy is within range and the wind conditions are right, pork strips would be cooked in giant woks. With the scent of freshly cooked pork everywhere, demonstrators will be traumatized. Many of those pork-smelling fanatics will be barred from their own homes, cafes, and other public places. What Sharia-compliant Muslim wife would sleep with a man reeking of filthy swine? Some will have to burn their clothing and take multiple baths”hardly a welcome option in societies averse to daily bathing.
Imagine if the Assad regime had deployed pork rather than conventional explosives. Artillery shells might be filled with cubed ham, sausage patties, deep-fried pork rinds, or chitterlings and set to explode 100 meters above a targeted village. Inhabitants might not return for twenty years after such a bombardment. But”and this is critical”nobody would be hurt physically. There would be no gruesome pictures of mass graves or stories of hapless women and children slaughtered. Pictures might even show young children happily chewing on bratwurst. Would the UN Security Council be outraged by YouTube videos of Homs residents complaining about pieces of pig feet scattered about their village?
The same tactic is available to Assad’s opponents, so what is now a deadly civil war becomes the equivalent of a food fight. Yes, people will be very upset, but nobody will be killed or even seriously injured.
For defensive purposes, perhaps as a way of separating warring Islamic extremists or protecting foreign embassies, five-foot-wide strips of bacon grease or lard would be the first line of defense. Their very existence will be more effective and cheaper than barbed wire or armed guards. Existing barricades could be reinforced by topping them off with sharply pointed sparerib tips.
Pork may also be the basis for a more humane internal security force. Specially trained Pork Police would root out potential suicide bombers. Pigs are as intelligent as dogs, and just as they are employed to uncover prized mushrooms, they could sniff out Hamas bomb factories and smuggling tunnels. Local Christians who have long experience with “dirty” jobs eschewed by devout Muslims might be recruited. These special police might have distinct uniforms featuring pink berets with matching curly tails, Porky Pig T-shirts, and stylish brushed pigskin suede shoes. How could anyone insist that such tactics violate any international definition of torture?