How one famous American used to deal with "Terrorists"
 

General John J. "Blackjack" Pershing
(*Be sure to read the story of how he dealt with Muslim Extremists at the bottom of the page)

http://members.shaw.ca/graphx/pics/pershing.jpg

John Joseph "Blackjack" Pershing (1860-1948) was born in Linn County, Missouri. He was a great American general who led the Expeditionary Force during World War I, and had a hand in many other campaigns during his life. General Pershing was also the Professor of Military Science at the University of Nebraska and taught tactics at The United States Military Academy at West Point. General Pershing was a strict disciplinarian, cold, distant, and demanding, but known well for being fair and just, as well as, being a tireless organizer, and a courageous leader of men.

Career Highlights

1891 - Prof. of Military Science and Tactics, University of Nebraska
1898 - Serves in the Spanish-American War
1901 - Awarded rank of Captain
1906 - Promoted to rank of Brigadier General
1909 - Military Governor of Moro Province, Philippines
1916 - Promoted to rank of Major General
1919 - Promoted to General of the Armies
1921 - Appointed Appointed Chief of Staff
1924 - Retires from active duty Education West Point


*Just before World War I, there were a number of terrorist attacks on the United States forces in the Philippines by Muslim extremists. So Gen. 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 now horrified terrorists. Muslims detest pork because they believe pigs are filthy 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, its meat, its blood, etc., is to be instantly barred from paradise (and those virgins) and doomed to hell.

The soldiers then soaked their bullets in the pig blood, and proceeded to execute 49 of the terrorists by firing squad. The soldiers then dug a big hole, dumped in the terrorists' bodies and covered them in pig blood and entrails. They let the 50th man go. And for the next forty-two 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 Blackjack Pershing?

holy shit, that's a nice guy

I always say be crazier than the crazy person, in this case be more extreme than the extremists

He looks like a hard ass mutha

and then the geneva convention was born..

poor pigs :1orglaugh

Thats my kinda guy...

911 the geneva convention died.

:(

So he's kinda like Saddam.

Damn, I wish someone would have the balls to do that again.

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.

Terrorists? Fine. How many people died in the 9/11? Three thousand? Great. Let's hunt down three thousand of Bin Laden's best friends and put them in a damn building and set it on fire.

or we could just protect ourselves by having a president who doesn't take a month long vacation while the terrorists are getting in place to attack us.

damn i hate when people beat me to the good 1s

Sounds much like what Sadam did ever time the tribal fighting started up just kill a few hundred of them and the fighting stoped.
Its very effective.

the sad thing about that is the americans are the only ones that comply with this.

More than that number of people are dying every day so looks like a good solution to me.

yep

Let's see here....

Pershing put murderous terrorists to death, because those terrorists caused the deaths of innocent civilians and the deaths of military personnel under his comand.

Saddam, however, put thousands upon thousands of average joe citizens to death on several known occasions.


Yeah, I can see where you'd come up with a similarity there....


If you were an idiot that is.

seen that way of dealing with muslim extremists before. don't know why they're not doing it.

He was fucking cool. :thumbsup

doesn't that only apply to prisoners of war? terrorists aren't pow's, they're criminals

Exactly.

those pigs gave their lives willingly for a good cause. where is their plaque? where is the pig memorial? hmmm?

How one American is trying to deal with them now in the 21st century:

Donald H. Rumsfeld was sworn in as the 21st Secretary of Defense on January 20, 2001. Before assuming his present post, the former Navy pilot had also served as the 13th Secretary of Defense, White House Chief of Staff, U.S. Ambassador to NATO, U.S. Congressman and chief executive officer of two Fortune 500 companies.

Secretary Rumsfeld is responsible for directing the actions of the Defense Department in response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The war is being waged against a backdrop of major change within the Department of Defense. The department has developed a new defense strategy and replaced the old model for sizing forces with a newer approach more relevant to the 21st century. Secretary Rumsfeld proposed and the President approved a significant reorganization of the worldwide command structure, known as the Unified Command Plan, that resulted in the establishment of the U.S. Northern Command and the U.S. Strategic Command, the latter charged with the responsibilities formerly held by the Strategic and Space Commands which were disestablished.

The Department also has refocused its space capabilities and fashioned a new concept of strategic deterrence that increases security while reducing strategic nuclear weapons. To help strengthen the deterrent, the missile defense research and testing program has been reorganized and revitalized, free of the restraints of the ABM treaty.

Mr. Rumsfeld attended Princeton University on academic and NROTC scholarships (A.B., 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as an aviator and flight instructor. In 1957, he transferred to the Ready Reserve and continued his Naval service in flying and administrative assignments as a drilling reservist until 1975. He transferred to the Standby Reserve when he became Secretary of Defense in 1975 and to the Retired Reserve with the rank of Captain in 1989.

In 1957, he came to Washington, DC to serve as Administrative Assistant to a Congressman. After a stint with an investment banking firm, he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Illinois in 1962, at the age of 30, and was re-elected in 1964, 1966, and 1968.

Mr. Rumsfeld resigned from Congress in 1969 during his fourth term to join the President's Cabinet. From 1969 to 1970, he served as Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity and Assistant to the President. From 1971 to 1972, he was Counsellor to the President and Director of the Economic Stabilization Program. In 1973, he left Washington, DC, to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Brussels, Belgium (1973-1974).

In August 1974, he was called back to Washington, DC, to serve as Chairman of the transition to the Presidency of Gerald R. Ford. He then became Chief of Staff of the White House and a member of the President's Cabinet (1974-1975). He served as the 13th U.S. Secretary of Defense, the youngest in the country's history (1975-1977).

From 1977 to 1985 he served as Chief Executive Officer, President, and then Chairman of G.D. Searle & Co., a worldwide pharmaceutical company. The successful turnaround there earned him awards as the Outstanding Chief Executive Officer in the Pharmaceutical Industry from the Wall Street Transcript (1980) and Financial World (1981). From 1985 to 1990 he was in private business.

Mr. Rumsfeld served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of General Instrument Corporation from 1990 to 1993. General Instrument Corporation was a leader in broadband transmission, distribution, and access control technologies. Until being sworn in as the 21st Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld served as Chairman of the Board of Gilead Sciences, Inc., a pharmaceutical company.

Before returning for his second tour as Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld chaired the bipartisan U.S. Ballistic Missile Threat Commission, in 1998, and the U.S. Commission to Assess National Security Space Management and Organization, in 2000.

During his business career, Mr. Rumsfeld continued his public service in a variety of Federal posts, including:

Member of the President's General Advisory Committee on Arms Control (1982 - 1986);
Special Presidential Envoy on the Law of the Sea Treaty (1982 - 1983);
Senior Advisor to the President's Panel on Strategic Systems (1983 - 1984);
Member of the U.S. Joint Advisory Commission on U.S./Japan Relations (1983 - 1984);
Special Presidential Envoy to the Middle East (1983 - 1984);
Member of the National Commission on Public Service (1987 - 1990);
Member of the National Economic Commission (1988 - 1989);
Member of the Board of Visitors of the National Defense University (1988 - 1992);
Member of the Commission on U.S./Japan Relations (1989 - 1991); and
Member of the U.S. Trade Deficit Review Commission (1999 - 2000).
While in the private sector, Mr. Rumsfeld's civic activities included service as a member of the National Academy of Public Administration and a member of the boards of trustees of the Gerald R. Ford Foundation, the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and the National Park Foundation, and as Chairman of the Eisenhower Exchange Fellowships, Inc.

In 1977, Mr. Rumsfeld was awarded the nation's highest civilian award, the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

http://members.shaw.ca/billy1-99/pics/dancingpig.gif
"In Pork We Trust"

hgahahaaha hell yeah... that's MY kind of guy!!

That could never be done in this day and age:2 cents:

Yeah, but if a invader get cruel killed by a Iraqi fighting for his country it is HORRIBLE

You sad pathetic bunch of tomatoes.

And now a quick bite of reality for all you dumbass Americans.


This happened during the Philippine-American War, a war that started after the US bought the Philippines from Spain, and occupied it against the wishes of the population there. They did that *after* the Philippines had already declared their independence, and even though they only had control over Manila, they planned on taking over the Philippines as a whole.

Hostilities started when an American soldier shot a Filipino soldier, after which the US President at the time *lied* to America and said that Manila had been attacked by rebels.

During the war, hundreds of thousands of Philipino civilians died, many of those were killed by the Americans and others died because they were placed into camps (I believe they were called "safe areas") where they died of famine and disease. American military often referred to the war as a "n.igger killing business".


Here's a letter by a US corporal that was published in the Ney York World:

Now, these "terrorists" were fighting against the people illegally occupying their country and killing their people. It wouldn't be a stretch to argue that they're actually heroes instead of terrorists.


So, the guy whose "style" you all seem to like so much, was actually a brutal murderer. Remember, the terrorists were actually just opposing forces. This whole story isn't much different than "terrorists" capturing 50 Americans and beheading them...

his name be 12clicks

come again in English?

Moron.

ahahahahaha. sure kid.

(I can't wait until school starts again)

I think the way you describe yourself in your sig fits fairly well... you indeed have the mental flexibility, creativity and intelligence of a brick wall.

3 cheers for 12clicks

couldnt have said it better myself. Judge them using their own law - we are when in their country

said the brainiac TGPer:1orglaugh

sounds like a good idea actually

:eek7

I'm a TGPer? When did that happen?

I'll warm up the pig blood. :thumbsup

i wouldnt call yourself that before you read the history of that guy and the war

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
who the fuck knows what you do? :1orglaugh

he killed the enemy. I'm comfortable with that.

editorials written in liberal rags have less credibility than the historical records.

Like any war in history, it can be described in several different points of view. One side always says "They had it coming" while another side says "No, they were innocent farmers and women and children being killed", while still another side says "There was corruption behind the scenes, this man is no hero!" etc etc. Every war.

The truth I suspect, invariably lies somewhere in the middle.



However, the above example of hard-line dealing with muslim extremists is one worth noting. Obviously in today's world, extending the olive branch and offering friendship and forgiveness and a cute smile isn't going to cause the terrorists to leave us alone. They hate our very lifestyle, period.

Pershing may have been many other things, but on this one particular point he certainly went with what worked at the time, that being to put the fear of God into them.

Have you even looked at the historical records?

CDSMITH - Lives in Canada and studies US military history. Interesting.

Thanks for the tid-bits.

PETA would sure be pissed about the pigs.

good. america has no business fucking around or keeping an eye on other countries.

WWII. Slavery. Colonialism. The Taliban.
The truth doesn't always lie somewhere in the middle. Sure, facts get distorted over the years, but in retrospect some thing are just wrong.


The idea that a very tough policy will work wonders is somewhat naive. Most muslims do not (fully) support the terrorists, but the more aggressive a stance the west takes towards Islam as a whole, the more muslims join the fight against us.

I've studied the history of many countries. Is that wrong?

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.

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.

Well they did kind of illegally invade the "enemies" homeland - but whos arguing :glugglug