You say it's not about the right or wrong of it, but it is. Sure, there's always some arguments about what really happened, but that doesn't mean you can't develop a moral position on the bottom line.

What happened in the war you were talking about, is something which we commonly consider to be wrong these days. No matter if 200k or 500k people were killed, what happened was wrong.


You are applauding someone who took a hard line stance against "terrorists" who were actually fighting against the occupation of their country by hostile forces who killed many thousands of their citizens. That's like applauding Hitler for taking a hard line stance against the "terrorist" resistance.

Now, obviously, the modern day muslim terrorists are not such a kind of resistance, so a hard line stance against them doesn't have the same moral implications - they probably do indeed deserve it.
However, there are also practical implications. One of those is that taking hard action that is not very clearly targetted only at those who have been proven to be active terrorists pisses off muslims worldwide and causes many of them to sympathize with and maybe even join the terrorist cause. Clearly, that is an undesirable effect.

As for a hard line stance against religious groups producing good results... look at what the Romans did to the Christians. Then look at where the Christians are now.

In my mind, terrorists today are those who sneak onto ships and set bombs that destroy the ship and kill unsuspecting people. They take over planes and crash them into buildings killing innocent civilians. They blow up sidewalk cafe's and subway trains killing dozens. They hold innocent civilians hostage.

All because they aren't smart enough to affect real change through a democratic process.

Pershing was probably many things, good and bad. I'm not here to debate his moral or immoral position or why his forces were where they were 90 years ago. The ONLY point was his hard-line recourse on what was reported in that article to be MUSLIM extremist terrorists. I was merely drawing a parallel to the situation in the world today with terrorism, and what might be done about it. If Bin Laden and his entire crew were to be captured tomorrow, and a guy like Pershing did this to them I am sure there would be just as many cheering him as those decrying him.

Making more of this discussion is pointless.

Careful what you wish for... you do know the penalty for having sex with other than your wife?:glugglug

How about some reality for you

http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/pershing.html

I think it's funny how "anti american" people don't even bother to research both sides of the argument.

YOU are the ignorant one :1orglaugh

You can try to manipulate the conversation any way you want, but weather you believe it or not, the central point of my post was about how one man may have dealt with terrorists nearly 100 years ago. No more, no less.