Muslim Delemma - Who caves in first?

Discussion in 'Politics and Religion' started by Jarhead, Feb 17, 2006.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725
    Dope... I'm not stating anything as fact. It's an OPINION.



    And if you're not a liar... than show everone here where I ever stated Wikipedia was Britanica? All I did was post a link from that site which btw were dead on accurate unless you can prove them wrong... which you never did and can't.

    Who's the bull shitter now?
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2006
  2. justbill_redux

    justbill_redux King Missile

    Messages:
    3,923
    So I'll ask again, who would you trust to know what Black Jacks intention might have been.

    A respected historian who undoubtedly had access to Perishings diaries and private letters to his compatriots and superiors in the government and has written what apparently is a well received biography of the man.

    Or some idiot whose grasp of history and the “facts” has been shown to be anything but factual again and again and who thinks Wikipedia is the Encyclopedia Britannica.

    So if anyones peddling bullshit its you.
  3. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725
    I don't disagree.. As I said earlier... this stunt if true didn't work cause there were acts of terrorism by Muslim hands in the philippines after this so-called incident. I don't think the US should resort to such tactics. I've always felt a strong stance with little to no mercy should be shown.

    On 9/11 this country should have bombed precise terror targets in several countries who are absolutely 100% known as terrorist havens and/or active supporters of terrorism... be it AlQueda, Hamas whatevea... Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Yemen and Somalia all fall under this category. This should have been done with or without UN or French approval in the days following 9/11 and all without setting a single American boot on the ground. Then in that infamous speech Bush gave a few days after 9/11, instead of serving notice that he'd hold nations accountable..... he could have showed an example and then served the world notice that the US would not stand for acts of war carried out by nomad terrorist or rouge regemes. Then and only then would he should have set american troops into Afghanistan in search of BL and high ranking AQ suspects and crossed any border they fled across.

    When FDR sent Doolittle to Tokyo in early 1942 he knew it would have little impact on the war.... but at the time it served a mesg and from then on the world knew of this countries resolve.
  4. DaveNJ

    DaveNJ

    Messages:
    6,849
    Ozz-
    Of course I cannot say one way or the other whether he did or would kill muslims using bullets dipped in pigs blood, etc.

    What is more important is whether the strategy would actually work. I have my doubts, but as I said earlier I don't believe in taking any options off the table when it comes to war. It is after all a dirty game and I have no moral objections to doing what is necessary.

    What I am opposed to however is making enemies of those who are neutral in a conflict. I suspect this tactic would not deter terrorists from continuing thier struggle and it would also add to their ranks. All it would take is a fatwa from Imam so and so to say that those killed in this way get an extra virgin or two in paradise and you'd see these guys lining up to be killed.
  5. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725
    Here's a brief bio on Pershing I got from just the first link on google search...

    http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/johnjose.htm

    Read it and tell me what kind of charcter you think Black Jack had. But remember the quote that started this... A general not having the type of charcter to kill some muslims in pig blood. I doubt you'll find many who reach the rank of general who don't posses that type of "son of a bitch" character... cept maybe a peace time general like Colin Powell.
  6. DaveNJ

    DaveNJ

    Messages:
    6,849
    Ozzy-

    Why don't you fill in the blanks for us and tell us what you know about the general that makes you think it is in line with his character?
  7. oddfellow4870

    oddfellow4870

    Messages:
    3,094
    I could go for Rudy. I think he's more stable than McCain.
  8. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725
    Perhaps its the guy who wrote that article who embellished that *****.

    But if this so call authority wrote that Black Jack wasn't the kind of person to pull a stunt like that then he obviously knows little about the great general. That's like saying the story that Patton once smacked a crying soldier was out of his character. I have no qualm with the guy saying it didn't happen... but anyone who knows ANYTHING about Black Jack Pershing knows he was a "son of a bitch".

    Kinda like when Lamont called Tito a tyrant.... yeah, much the same as Ghandi was huh?

    You understand that, justbullshit?
  9. justbill_redux

    justbill_redux King Missile

    Messages:
    3,923

    Hmmmm who to believe? The guy who wrote
    Black Jack - The Life and Times of John J. Pershing
    Dr. Vandiver's detailed, deeply researched biography evokes Pershing on both the personal and professional levels...[His]study is the best and most complete we are likely to have." - Los Angeles Times Book Review

    or the resident UG authority. Tough choice there.
  10. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725
    I find it hard to believe any expert of Black Jack Pershing would say "This kind of thing would have run completely against his character." Unless he was talking about BJP holding a bake sale or showing lienency. Sounds like this so-called expert is trying to be a revisionist of history and turn BJP into some kind of saint.... a saint Black Jack certainly was not. For those who don't know, Gen Pershing was someone cut from the same mold as a Teddy Roosevelt or George Patton etc.... I'm not saying the story is true but THAT'S exactly the type of thing Black Jack would have done... and was known to do.
  11. DaveNJ

    DaveNJ

    Messages:
    6,849
    Damn edit rule...I knew I wasn't going to finish in time, so I had to cut it short....

    Anyway, I found some information that leads me to the conclusion that the anecdote about Gen. Pershing is most likely inaccurate.

    http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_black_jack_pershing.htm

    Comments: I consulted Dr. Frank E. Vandiver, professor of history at Texas A&M University and author of "Black Jack: The Life and Times of John J. Pershing," to find out if there's any truth to the above, and he responded via ***** that in his opinion the story is apocryphal. "I never found any indication that it was true in extensive research on his Moro experiences," he wrote. "This kind of thing would have run completely against his character."

    Not having much knowlege of Gen. Pershing, I'll defer to Dr. Vandiver's seemingly extensive knowledge.
  12. DaveNJ

    DaveNJ

    Messages:
    6,849

    Jarhead-

    I wouldn't rule out actions such as this. However, I would say it would be best to think carefully before proceeding. What are the possible negative outcomes? Would something like that really work or would it better serve our enemies by showing just how inhumane the US can be, and giving more credence to their claim that we are at war with Islam?

    Personally, I think it would be an AQ recruiters dream for the US to persue a policy such as that, but again I wouldn't take it off the table. We are talking about war here.

    For the record, I highly doubt that General Pershing actually did that.
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2006
  13. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725

    Their reasons for not eating pig had more to do with the fact they didn't know pork had to be cooked properly (fully) back in those days and thus they contracted various health issues associated with that. There's also a rule in the jewish dietary laws about eating animals with non-cloven hoofs. Thus horse and pig are not kosher and would not be allowed. Not sure it the Muslims share that rule.
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2006
  14. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725
    Story above is true, least in some part. While his actions did put the brakes on attacks in that area at that time.... Terror attacks by Muslims absolutely occurred after that incident both in the Philippines and elsewhere.





    Rudy Giuliani


    Although I find it hard to believe that the liberals in this country as well as the hypocrites in Europe and Asia would ever stand for that tactic.
  15. Jarhead

    Jarhead

    Messages:
    939
    Muslim Delemma: Back on topic.

    The following is a copy of one of those internet circulating *****s and I have not checked it's validity but I can't say I disagree with the idea as a solution. It kind of coincides with my thoughts on eliminating the clerics preaching extremism.

    [GENERAL BLACK JACK PERSHING was born September 13,1860 near Laclede, Ms and died July 15, 1948. Highlights of his life include:
    1891: Professor of Military Science and Tactics – University of Nebraska
    1898: Served in the Spanish American War
    1901: Rank of Captain
    1906 Promoted to rank of Brigadier General
    1909: Military Govenor of Moro Province, Philippines
    1916: Promoted Major General
    1919: Promoted to General of the Armies
    1921: Appointed to Chief of Staff
    1924: Retires from Active Duty, Education at West Point.

    Just before World War l, there were a number of terrorist attacks on the United States forces in the Philippines by Muslim extremists. General Pershing captured 50 terrorists and had them tied to posts for execution. He then had his men bring in two pigs and slaughter them in front of the terrorists. Muslims detest pork because they believe pigs are unclean animals. Some of them simply refuse to eat it, while others won’t even touch pigs at all, nor any of their by products. To them, eating or touching a pig, it’s meat, its blood, etc. is to be instantly barred from paradise and doomed to hell. The soldiers then dipped their bullets in the pigs blood, and proceeded to execute 49 of the terrorists by firing squad. The soldiers dug a trench, dumped in the terrorist’s bodies and covered them with the remaining pig blood, entrails, etc. They let the 50th prisoner go free. And for the next 42 years, there was not a single Muslim extremist attack anywhere in the world. Maybe it is time for this segment of history to repeat itself. The question is; where do we find another Jack Pershing?]

    Even if this isn't factual, it's a retort worthy of consideration to their radical or extremist behavior. I think if you can identify a weak point in a culture and exploit it to serve a respectable means to address their insanity, then only a fool wouldn't take advantage of it. If these folks are archaic and dumb enough to think a pig is unsanitary then by all means take advantage of it. Like cattle don't wallow in mud, but they're sanitary. Defies logic.
  16. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725
    Thats a good point cept for the fact that they didn't speak hebrew as we know it today, 3,000 yrs ago. See the dead sea scrolls which were written closer to that time frame (2300-2500 yrs ago) and in a different variation of the hebrew language. It's close much like Portuguese and Spanish.... probably closer, but not exactly the same. When it comes to words like "murder" and "kill" you run into the same issue with the words in several languages.
  17. jras

    jras

    Messages:
    3,149
    news flash

    god commited suicide long ago
    right after he offed his wacko stepkid JC
  18. un4given

    un4given

    Messages:
    958
    God is pretty fucking stupid for not defining in exact terms his own terminology.... yea "murder" is bad, but "killing" is ok.... plenty of semantic gray area to exploit for personal benefit! Im glad god isnt running for president, because he has a bigger credibility gap as a leader than even bush...
  19. oddfellow4870

    oddfellow4870

    Messages:
    3,094
    Does this mean that Just Bill can't start a thread on the subject of ... "God is a Liar!" ?

    Funny thing. I don't think God is running for President again either....
  20. gardener

    gardener

    Messages:
    389
    Of course, it isn't a matter of semantics but the complete difference in substance, i.e. killing in war, self defence, etc. is not forbidden, while murder is.