Time for another 'Black Jack' Pershing?
Tilly
Laclede, MS.
He died July 15th, 1948 in Washington, D.C.
Highlights of his life include:
1891 Professor 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 Made Major General
1919 Promoted to General of the Armies
1921 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
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, now horrified, terrorists.
The soldiers then soaked their bullets in the pigs blood, and
proceeded to execute 49 of the terrorists by firing squad. The
soldiers then dug a big hole, dumped in the terrorist's bodies and
covered them in pig blood, entrails, etc.
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 Black Jack Pershing
Tilly
Brian Harmer
wrote:
> General "Black Jack" Pershing was born September 13th, 1860 near
>Laclede, MS.
>He died July 15th, 1948 in Washington, D.C.
(snip)
> Maybe it is time for this segment of history to repeat itself? The
>question is, where do we find another Black Jack Pershing
Hopefully in front of a war crimes tribunal
Peter Kenyon
"Tilly" <climb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:YlxGa.26853$JA5.5...@news.xtra.co.nz...
I guess those Filipinos must have been making anthrax and VX, otherwise why
would America have been sending troops into the Phillipines?
Peter
Tilly
>
> I guess those Filipinos must have been making anthrax and VX,
> otherwise why would America have been sending troops into the
> Phillipines?
IIRC they were asked there.
Tilly
ChrisOD
purchased the Philippines from Spain for twenty million dollars. At the
time, U.S. military forces controlled only Manila and its immediate suburbs;
Filipinos controlled the rest of the country. On February 4, 1899, the
Philippine-American War began as the United States tried to exert its
control beyond Manila.
About 200000 civilians killed, 20000 Philippino revolutionaries, and 5000 US
soldiers were killed between 1899 and 1902.
The US was the coloniser and the "purchase" was part of the war reparations
with Spain. Colonialism pure and simple.
Chris
Karen Hayward-King
wrote:
<snip>
> Maybe it is time for this segment of history to repeat itself? The
>question is, where do we find another Black Jack Pershing
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.htm
Snopes lists the status of Pershing alleged 'pig' deeds as
"undetermined". While they haven't proved yet that it did or did not
happen, they appear to lean more towards it being another urban legend
:-)
--
Karen Hayward-King
'The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.'
Wouldn't the grass also be as green on your side of the fence,
if you spent time watering it and caring for it?
Morrissey Breen
terrorism in message news:<YlxGa.26853$JA5.5...@news.xtra.co.nz>...
First she approvingly recounts the horrifying/fascinating story of an
act of atrocity committed by General "Black Jack" Pershing.
>
> And for the next forty-two years, there was
> not a single Muslim extremist attack anywhere in the world.
There was, though, no end of ZIONIST extremist attacks, mostly
inflicted on the people of Palestine (as now) but also in Great
Britain.
>
> Maybe it is time for this segment of history to repeat itself?
You write as though you think that the anger of Arab people against
the U.S. and its vassal states like Australia and Britain is mainly
RELIGIOUS. I know that you are more educated than that - so why do
you imply that it is?
>
> The question is, where do we find another Black Jack Pershing
U.S. army atrocities against indigenous people who have the gall to
resist them are well documented. Black Jack Pershing's butchery fits
into a long tradition. I could document hundreds of Black Jack
pershing style atrocities committed by U.S. troops, but for now let's
have a look at just three....
1.) Lieut. William Calley and his soldiers butchering hundreds of
villagers at My Lai;
2.) U.S. government supporting and trying to cover up the nerve gas
murders of 30,000 Kurds in 1988 by America's Iraqi allies;
3.) the soldiers in Iraq just a few weeks ago machinegunning a
vehicle full of women and children for "refusing to stop"....
Interesting, too, how many of these U.S. acts of terror end up with
the victims' bodies being thrown into pits. It's kind of an American
army signature, I suppose.
WeeWillyWonka
>There was, though, no end of ZIONIST extremist attacks, mostly
>inflicted on the people of Palestine (as now) but also in Great
>Britain.
Breen, you are stupid and myopic beyond belief. Pull your head out of
your ass and smell the real world.
willy
Redbaiter
>
> Interesting, too, how many of these U.S. acts of terror end up with
> the victims' bodies being thrown into pits. It's kind of an American
> army signature, I suppose.
>
Same tied old anti-US commie propaganda.
Only a retarded time warped fool leftist would be guilty of
assuming that such bigoted proclamations would count for
anything today. (other than identifying the propagator of
such cliched rubbish as an unaware and embarrassing fool)
Your totalitarian commie buddies are the ones who know how
to throw bodies into pits.
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
BR
If these backward islamic terrorists believe in this bullshit, then
every projectile weapon used against them should have the well
publicised blood of a pig included as part of the payload. If that is
enough to make some of them think that they aren't going to get their
72 virgins for eternity when they die as martyrs, it may act as a
deterrent to their idiocy.
So why do you have a problem with such a strategy?
Bill.
Morrissey Breen
mouth in message news:<3eede9dd...@news.paradise.net.nz>...
>
> If these backward islamic terrorists
...< snip ignorant, racist raving >...
>
> deterrent to their idiocy.
>
> So why do you have a problem with such a strategy?
Errrr... because it's murder?
Redbaiter
babbling time warped cretin? Lock them up until their
buddies hijack a plane to get them freed?
Your good buddy Fidel knows what to do, he just executed
three of them by firing squad.
BR
Yeah, and they weren't even terrorists. All they tried to do was to
escape from the Cuban socialist paradise.
Bill
Morrissey Breen
> On 14 Jun 2003 18:22:05 -0700, Morrissey Breen wrote:
> >There was, though, no end of ZIONIST extremist attacks, mostly
> >inflicted on the people of Palestine (as now) but also in Great
> >Britain.
> ... (and loads more of complete drivel)
Note that our friend "Willy" has snipped my citations of American
atrocities, either by its own troops (in Vietnam in 1968 and Iraq in
2003) or by its Iraqi allies (Iraq in 1988). Then he has called them
"complete drivel".
No attempt to refute my examples. Nor even to justify them and
"excuse" them, like those smooth, practised, plausible-sounding liars
from the Pentagon and the State Department did each day during the
recent illegal invasion of Iraq.
>
> Breen, you are stupid and myopic beyond belief.
"Stupid"? How so? "Myopic"? I don't think so. I mean - it's not
me that's trying to deny such brutal realities as THIS...
Morrissey Breen
Provide evidence for or against the contention that fanatical
extremists have nothing thoughtful to contribute and are neither
interested in arguing, nor able to argue, political questions without
resorting to dull abuse and unimaginative, derogatory labelling of
anyone who holds a contrary view.
You must provide quotes from at least one post by a fanatical
extremist to back up your argument, and note at least one POINT OF
INTEREST arising from the fanatic's post.
You must also provide a one sentence summary of the fanatic's
character.
Due: Monday 16/6/03
15/6/03
ABUSIVE LANGUAGE AS SUBSTITUTE FOR ARGUMENT: A STUDY OF ONE POST BY
"REDBAITER"...... by M. Breen
For my project, I chose a typical post by a loyal supporter of the
rogue Bush administration, and infamous Usenet abuser, who calls
himself "Redbaiter". In this post, he seems very angry at being
reminded of the long history of American war atrocities and genocidal
policies in places as diverse as Vietnam, the Philippines, Central
America, South America, the Caribbean, Iraq, Indonesia, Palestine and
Iraq....
Redbaiter <don't...@email.me> wrote in message news:<3eebd545$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>...
> morriss...@yahoo.com says...
>
> >
> > Interesting, too, how many of these U.S. acts of terror end up with
> > the victims' bodies being thrown into pits. It's kind of an American
> > army signature, I suppose.
> >
> Same tied old anti-US commie propaganda.
Four ADJECTIVES: "tied" [sic!], "old anti-US commie" and one
pejorative EPITHET.
POINT OF INTEREST: The unreflective use of the cartoonish "commie".
This is something only the crudest McCarthyite stooges used in the
dark days of the witch hunts in the 1940s and 50s. Redbaiter's use of
it reflects both his indolence and the intellectual level of what he
reads (probably G.I. Joe comics).
Note that Redbaiter makes no attempt to refute the facts, which are,
of course, irrefutable. Instead, he makes that one dismissive comment,
replete with adjectives and nothing else.
POINT OF INTEREST: When he writes "tied old", that could be read as a
simple error. Or is Redbaiter secretly trying to tell us something?
I think he could be subtly referring to the fact that many of the
victims of these mass killings by U.S. troops or their Iraqi or other
proxies, HAD THEIR HANDS TIED. Is this a sign by Redbaiter that he
actually recognises the truth of the charges levelled against the U.S.
government and military by the international community?
>
> Only a retarded time warped fool leftist would be guilty of
> assuming that such bigoted proclamations would count for
> anything today.
Here, Redbaiter uses five ADJECTIVES: "retarded, time warped; fool
(he should have written "foolish"); leftist; bigoted". None of them
achieves anything. This is flaccid language, abusive but utterly
ineffective.
Also of note is the breezy way he attempts to dismiss the relevance of
the examples of U.S. war crimes. He denigrates their validity by
labelling them "time warped". Yet one of the three examples (the
checkpoint murders of Iraqi women and children) occurred just two
months ago; the gassing of 30,000 Kurds (and botched cover-up) was
just 15 years ago; the My Lai massacre just 35 years ago.
Redbaiter tries to bluster them out of the way by claiming that they
would not "count for anything today". This implies that they are
irrelevant now, and that we have more important things to get on with.
One wonders if he is equally dismissive of the Jewish victims of the
holocaust, which occurred much further in the past than any of the
examples given.
>
> (other than identifying the propagator of
> such cliched rubbish as an unaware and embarrassing fool)
Three ADJECTIVES: "cliched, unaware, embarrassing"; one derogatory
EPITHET ("fool"). Once again, Redbaiter achieves no traction; his
abuse is constant, but makes no impact, because it is unsubstantiated
abuse.
>
> Your totalitarian commie buddies are the ones who know how to throw bodies into pits.
DENIAL OF FACT: Yet again, Redbaiter makes no attempt to argue. He
simply denies the facts of the My Lai massacre, the U.S. backed nerve
gas attacks on Kurdish people, and the U.S. troops murdering women
and children at an Iraqi checkpoint. His only tactic is to say that
Americans don't do that sort of thing; but of course "totalitarian
commie buddies" do.
Note also the recurrence of the word "commie".
ONE SENTENCE ON THE FANATIC'S CHARACTER: Redbaiter is a willing dupe
of the rogue Bush administration, strong on unfocused abuse, keen to
fling unsupported adjectives about, his posts lack substance and he
seems to lack personal integrity.
WeeWillyWonka
>No attempt to refute my examples. Nor even to justify them and
>"excuse" them, like those smooth, practised, plausible-sounding liars
>from the Pentagon and the State Department did each day during the
>recent illegal invasion of Iraq.
It is because your posting was so one-sided and slanted that it's
obviously not a product of rational thought. You're just
regurgitating socialist thought as circulated in the universities.
One cannot reason with an unreasoning person, so that is why I do not
try. Only shock therapy can save you from yourself, it seems, at
least at this stage. Alternatively, age and experience will bring you
to your senses, but that will take years. So my sharp words are just
a friendly attempt to make you see how silly you sound to people who
use their brains to think, not just to rant.
willy
Karen Hayward-King
Breen) wrote:
>
>Also of note is the breezy way he attempts to dismiss the relevance of
>the examples of U.S. war crimes. He denigrates their validity by
>labelling them "time warped". Yet one of the three examples (the
>checkpoint murders of Iraqi women and children) occurred just two
>months ago; the gassing of 30,000 Kurds (and botched cover-up) was
>just 15 years ago; the My Lai massacre just 35 years ago.
The gassing of 30,000 Kurds was a 'US war crime" ?
Brian Dooley
On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 18:24:39 +1200, "Peter Kenyon"
<p.kenyon...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
snip---
>I guess those Filipinos must have been making anthrax and VX, otherwise why
>would America have been sending troops into the Phillipines?
They owned the place.
Where have you heard that before?
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
Brian Dooley
But is it true eg King David Hotel.
Redbaiter
> Redbaiter is a willing dupe
> of the rogue Bush administration, strong on unfocused abuse, keen to
> fling unsupported adjectives about, his posts lack substance and he
> seems to lack personal integrity.
>
What's this then? Yet another post made specifically for the
purpose of attacking another poster personally??
Haven't you been warned about such a transgression of usenet
etiquette already?
Perhaps its an obsessive compulsion you suffer from.
You should be aware that mental problems are not
considered an acceptable excuse.
Reposted as I forgot this timewarped bozo doesn't know how
to use a newsreader.)
Morrissey Breen
> On 15 Jun 2003 08:14:53 -0700, morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey
> Breen) wrote:
>
> >
> >Also of note is the breezy way he attempts to dismiss the relevance of
> >the examples of U.S. war crimes. He denigrates their validity by
> >labelling them "time warped". Yet one of the three examples (the
> >checkpoint murders of Iraqi women and children) occurred just two
> >months ago; the gassing of 30,000 Kurds (and botched cover-up) was
> >just 15 years ago; the My Lai massacre just 35 years ago.
>
> The gassing of 30,000 Kurds was a 'US war crime" ?
This writer - moi - stated clearly that it was Iraqi, not American,
troops that gassed the Kurdish people in 1988. The U.S. was, owever,
complicit in the massacre: the State Department wheeled out its
smoothest and most unblinking liars, errrr, spokesmen, to try to pin
it on the Iranians instead of on America's Iraqi allies.
So the actual physical killing was done by the troops of America's
ally, Saddam Hussein. The chillingly cynical cover-up attempt was by
the United States.
Tim Scrivens
"Morrissey Breen" <morriss...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fb3a0456.03061...@posting.google.com...
> Karen Hayward-King <kiwi...@yellowsub.net> wrote in message
news:<sm5pevko12mhlr85l...@4ax.com>...
> > On 15 Jun 2003 08:14:53 -0700, morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey
> > Breen) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Also of note is the breezy way he attempts to dismiss the relevance of
> > >the examples of U.S. war crimes. He denigrates their validity by
> > >labelling them "time warped". Yet one of the three examples (the
> > >checkpoint murders of Iraqi women and children) occurred just two
> > >months ago; the gassing of 30,000 Kurds (and botched cover-up) was
> > >just 15 years ago; the My Lai massacre just 35 years ago.
> >
> > The gassing of 30,000 Kurds was a 'US war crime" ?
>
> This writer - moi - stated clearly that it was Iraqi, not American,
> troops that gassed the Kurdish people in 1988. The U.S. was, owever,
> complicit in the massacre: the State Department wheeled out its
> smoothest and most unblinking liars, errrr, spokesmen, to try to pin
> it on the Iranians instead of on America's Iraqi allies.
Did they go in and gas them?
Did they advise the Iraqis to gas them?
Did they sell them gas, with the knowledge that it was to be used on the
Kurds?
The answer to all of these is No. I don't think you can pin this one on the
Yanks. They have enough morally suspect stuff to answer for without you
inventing stuff, which only serves to obfuscate any actual crimes and
thereby advance the US spokesman's agenda.
Or something.
Morrissey Breen
>
> Did they go in and gas them?
As I pointed out, it was the Americans' ally, Iraq, that went in and
gassed them. They did nothing to stop the attacks; they did
everything they could to cover them up after the fact.
>
> Did they advise the Iraqis to gas them?
No, but the U.S. attempted (unsuccessfully) to hide the crime and then
to blame it on IRAN. The U.S. allowed its ally Saddam Hussein to do
what it liked in the region, right up until August 1990, when Hussein
tried to annex Kuwait.
>
> Did they sell them gas, with the knowledge that it was to be used on the Kurds?
The U.S. sold them the helicopters that were used in the attacks.
Are you trying to say that the U.S. was so naive that they did not
know that the helicopters would be used for military purposes?
>
> The answer to all of these is No.
The answer to all those questions is "not exactly, but the U.S. did
nothing to stop it and everything it could to hide it."
>
> I don't think you can pin this one on the Yanks.
I think we can place a great deal of the blame for it on "the Yanks".
They provided the transport and the moral support for Saddam Hussein
throughout the 1980s.
>
>They have enough morally suspect stuff to answer for...
"Morally suspect"? Is THAT what you call being complicit in and then
covering up acts of genocide? That is a remarkably mealy-mouthed
phrase to use about America's support for the murderous regime of
Saddam Hussein.
>
> ..... without you inventing stuff, ....
I "invented" stuff? What, exactly? The gassing? The attempted
cover-up by the U.S. The fact that the U.S. supported Hussein as long
as it suited them?
>
> ....which only serves to obfuscate any actual crimes and thereby advance the US
> spokesman's agenda.
This act of genocide happened. The attempted cover-up by the U.S.
happened. I am not "obfuscating" anything.
WeeWillyWonka
Breen) wrote:
(usual ravings)
Moronssey leaves you breathless. The boy is a self-parody requiring
no further embellishment.
willy
Geoff McCaughan
> Did they go in and gas them?
> Did they advise the Iraqis to gas them?
> Did they sell them gas, with the knowledge that it was to be used on the
> Kurds?
It depends.
If you use the same logic as the current US administration has in selecting
the targets for its outrage, the answers would be:
Yes,
Yes,
Yes, we've got proof,
Nukem.
Errr, actually we were just trying to liberate the oppressed... or something.
Redbaiter
You think he's a boy??
Really?
Well, he's clearly immature mentally, but I would guess his
real age at somewhere around the fifties, given his
dated political rhetoric.
Its as if he is a modern day Rip Van Winkle, went to sleep
in the sixties and woke up in 2003, completely unaware of
the changes in the political landscape that occurred while
he was snoozing.
Actually, a lot of leftists have that problem. He sounds
just like my friggin commie Uncle.
Brian Dooley
On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 03:37:06 GMT, spam...@noonehome.com (BR)
wrote:
Just make sure none of them finish up in Israel.
Tim Scrivens
"Geoff McCaughan" <geo...@spam.fqdn.com> wrote in message
news:2WrHa.33026$JA5.5...@news.xtra.co.nz...
With the exception of the last "nuke" bit, you could certainly make a strong
case that the US had no mandate to declare war on Iraq.
But what has that to do with the Iraqis gassing the Kurds, exactly?
Tim Scrivens
"Morrissey Breen" <morriss...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fb3a0456.03061...@posting.google.com...
news:<pOfHa.32076$JA5.5...@news.xtra.co.nz>...
>
> >
> > Did they go in and gas them?
> As I pointed out, it was the Americans' ally, Iraq, that went in and
> gassed them. They did nothing to stop the attacks; they did
> everything they could to cover them up after the fact.
So the Americans didn't gas them? That would be a "No", then.
> >
> > Did they advise the Iraqis to gas them?
> No, but the U.S. attempted (unsuccessfully) to hide the crime and then
> to blame it on IRAN. The U.S. allowed its ally Saddam Hussein to do
> what it liked in the region, right up until August 1990, when Hussein
> tried to annex Kuwait.
That isn't what I asked. But the answer, as you gave, to the original
question, was No.
> >
> > Did they sell them gas, with the knowledge that it was to be used on the
Kurds?
> The U.S. sold them the helicopters that were used in the attacks.
> Are you trying to say that the U.S. was so naive that they did not
> know that the helicopters would be used for military purposes?
Another "No". And what the Iraqis did to the Kurds wasn't military. It was
criminal.
> >
> > The answer to all of these is No.
> The answer to all those questions is "not exactly, but the U.S. did
> nothing to stop it and everything it could to hide it."
But didn't know it was going to happen before the event.
> >
> > I don't think you can pin this one on the Yanks.
> I think we can place a great deal of the blame for it on "the Yanks".
> They provided the transport and the moral support for Saddam Hussein
> throughout the 1980s.
No. You can blame them for the cover-up. Not for the original crime.
> >
> >They have enough morally suspect stuff to answer for...
> "Morally suspect"? Is THAT what you call being complicit in and then
> covering up acts of genocide? That is a remarkably mealy-mouthed
> phrase to use about America's support for the murderous regime of
> Saddam Hussein.
They were not complicit in it. I was talking about OTHER morally suspect
stuff. Supply your own example.
> >
> > ..... without you inventing stuff, ....
>
> I "invented" stuff? What, exactly? The gassing? The attempted
> cover-up by the U.S. The fact that the U.S. supported Hussein as long
> as it suited them?
You invented that the US was to blame. By the way, dividing sentences like
this and answering only half the thought is a bit disingenuous, IMHO.
> >
> > ....which only serves to obfuscate any actual crimes and thereby advance
the US
> > spokesman's agenda.
>
> This act of genocide happened. The attempted cover-up by the U.S.
> happened. I am not "obfuscating" anything.
Blaming the US for the genocide is obfuscation. Blame them for the
cover-up.
WeeWillyWonka
>w...@freenet.co.nz says...
>> Moronssey leaves you breathless. The boy is a self-parody requiring
>> no further embellishment.
>>
>Really?
He's got the energy of a university 1st or 2nd year student. Not an
old-schooler I'd say.
willy
Geoff McCaughan
> But what has that to do with the Iraqis gassing the Kurds, exactly?
Not a lot. Just pointing out the irony...