How one famous American used to deal with "Terrorists" - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Libertine · 08-02-2004, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CDSmith
Yes, however those examples too have been described from varying points of view. I'm not talking about the right or the wrong of it, I'm talking about the TRUTH of what really happened. Historians will write about an event or a war etc, and people will talk about it, and 100 years later there will still be arguments as to what really happened, and why.

My point stands.... the truth lies somewhere in the middle of all the viewpoints.

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.

Quote:

Originally posted by CDSmith
Muslim extremists that hate the west with a passion seem to disrespect weakness or a weak response. In any other circumstance I would support treating the wound with more diplomacy, more friendship, more love etc etc yadda yadda yadda....

But when dealing with the extremist muslims, it seems the only option that does make an impact is to hit them hard right where it hurts most. You of course have a right to disagree, seeing as how you live..... wait, where do you live? If you live in a "free" country then you do have a right to disagree. Fact is, terrorists don't care what your views are, they simply hate you, period. You can support diplomacy all you want, but if I want to applaud someone in history for taking a hard line stance on terrorism, I will.

No one said this was the magic solution, so you can quit trying to play the "naive" card.

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.

CDSmith · 08-02-2004, 11:59 AM

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.

mardigras · 08-02-2004, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RocHard
I believe in an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. If you got caught shoplifting, fine, we'll chop off your damn hand.

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

Jamie · 08-02-2004, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by punkworld
And now a quick bite of reality for all you dumbass Americans.

How about some reality for you

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

Quote:

There are no documented accounts of these events ever happening in the Philippines or anywhere else in 1911 or at any other time. Even experts who have studied "Black Jack" have no record of it. Pershing biographer, Dr. Frank E. Vandiver, told Urban Legends expert, David Emery, that he has found no historical account of such a strategy and feels that such actions would run counter to what is know of Pershing's character.

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

CDSmith · 08-02-2004, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by punkworld
You say it's not about the right or wrong of it, but it is.

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.

08-02-2004, 11:59 AM	#52
CDSmith Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: My network is hosted at TECHIEMEDIA.net ...Wait, you meant where am I located at? Oh... okay, I'm in Winnipeg, Canada. Oops. :) Posts: 51,460	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. __________________ *Promote Wildmatch, ImLive, Sexier.com, and more!!* ALWAYS THE HIGHEST PAYOUTS: Big Bux/ImLive SIGNUP ON NOW!!! Put some PUSSYCA$H in your pocket. ICQ me at: 31024634