Found this interesting tidbit while surfing

[Taem]

I wiki'd him, but couldn't substantiate this article's claim about how he killed the terrorists, but nonetheless found it an interesting way to deal with terrorists - at least one I'd never think up.

[roguebanshee]

I wiki'd him, but couldn't substantiate this article's claim about how he killed the terrorists, but nonetheless found it an interesting way to deal with terrorists - at least one I'd never think up.

Try this link or snopes.

[eppie]

I wiki'd him, but couldn't substantiate this article's claim about how he killed the terrorists, but nonetheless found it an interesting way to deal with terrorists - at least one I'd never think up.

It is a way more often (not exactly the same but using pigs) proposed by some people.
I think these kind of thinsg absolutely don't work. The main con I have is that by doing these things you drive large numbers of people to hate you. Unlike what a lot of people think, most muslims are just normal peaceful human beings. By doing these things which would be (just like e.g. the death penalty for murder) a good punishment for a proven terrorist, but whill have no preventive results whatsoever.

So just out of revenge you will actually end up with more extremists...which is not a good thing (especially because non-muslims don't even believe the virgins in heaven thing. .........with doing a thing like this you might even give them the idea that you believe it as well.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . .

Had that article not been about an American general, would you have been as ready to accept it as true? Your prejudice is showing, and prejudice is the child of stupidity or ignorance -- pick which one applies to you.

-Pete

[Rhydderch Hael]

Most notable thing I find with the blurb is the convenient and anachronistic use of 'extremists' and 'terrorists' to label what would have, in contemporary accounts, been regarded as 'insurrectionists'.

Pretty neat, witnessing a casual re-write of history to justify circumstances of the present. I feel like I'm on Babylon 5 now.:)

[kandrathe]

...
I wiki'd him, but couldn't substantiate this article's claim about how he killed the terrorists, but nonetheless found it an interesting way to deal with terrorists - at least one I'd never think up.

This type of insensitive racist persecution might have acceptable in that day, but I hope we agree that it would be unacceptable in the present day. I think this would be as disrespectful and barbaric as performing and posting a beheading on the internet. There are no short-cuts to peace and justice.

[Taem]

This type of insensitive racist persecution might have acceptable in that day, but I hope we agree that it would be unacceptable in the present day. I think this would be as disrespectful and barbaric as performing and posting a beheading on the internet. There are no short-cuts to peace and justice.

No, actually I agree with you. I found the article shocking because I never heard of it before... and I never even thought (and never would have thought) of something like that. Nonetheless, its effectiveness on extremists "back in the day" leads to much speculation as to how to reach terrorists because, as you so eloquently put it, there are no short-cuts to [peace]. How do you bring peace to a place where only an Iron-Fist-type tyrant (i.e. Saddam Hussein) gets through to the people? Definitely not with Democracy!

Justice however is another matter in my mind. Jack had his own style of justice and it worked for him, and while his style of justice might not work in today’s world with today’s standards, there is a lot to be said [regarding Iraq] about cause and effect. Did the terrorists of today really get what they deserved? Was justice served? If our invasion of Iraq has subsequently spawned "many" more anti-American groups in the process of stopping terrorism, then the entire invasion was done incorrectly obviously. I think there is more to be gleamed from the history of good 'o Jack than merely focusing on the negative aspects of his actions by today’s standards. What that is, I don’t know, but I feel there is more there.

[kandrathe]

No, actually I agree with you. I found the article shocking because I never heard of it before... and I never even thought (and never would have thought) of something like that. Nonetheless, its effectiveness on extremists "back in the day" leads to much speculation as to how to reach terrorists because, as you so eloquently put it, there are no short-cuts to [peace]. How do you bring peace to a place where only an Iron-Fist-type tyrant (i.e. Saddam Hussein) gets through to the people? Definitely not with Democracy!

First, the world needs to be very clear on what the rules are, and no one can fudge on them when it suits them. There can be no mixed messages, such as, its o.k. to use chemical weapons on Iran to stop the human waves, but don't use it on the Kurds as a iron booted terror tactic. Second, you need to be very clear on what the escalating punishments are for violating the rules, then be willing to enforce them. Third, there needs to be an incentive for following the rules. In general, people (even tyrants) avoid pain, and do what they are incented to do. They have to know that the chances of beating the system are nil, but if they go along they will be better off.

Justice however is another matter in my mind. Jack had his own style of justice and it worked for him, and while his style of justice might not work in today’s world with today’s standards, there is a lot to be said [regarding Iraq] about cause and effect. Did the terrorists of today really get what they deserved? Was justice served? If our invasion of Iraq has subsequently spawned "many" more anti-American groups in the process of stopping terrorism, then the entire invasion was done incorrectly obviously. I think there is more to be gleamed from the history of good 'o Jack than merely focusing on the negative aspects of his actions by today’s standards. What that is, I don’t know, but I feel there is more there.

Justice was served to Saddam and his Bathe party dictatorship, not terrorists.

The terrorism and insurgency was probably an unavoidable consequence of our incursion into Iraq. Our founding fathers gave us an example of how to deal with the current terrorist threat. John Adams was some what loathe to get into a conflict on the Barbary Coast saying something to the effect that once you attack them you will be fighting them forever. The winner in this contest will be the one who has the adroitness to avoid direct violence and the resolve not allow the other to change their lifestyle, that is, until both sides resolve to pursue peace (Live and let live). But, I fear that the only peace Jihadi's will accept is that of a cold, damp grave. The US of A and Islamic Jihadists are diametrically opposed philosophies. Patrick Henry's "Give me Liberty, or Give me Death" is at direct odds to the islamic fundamentalist notion of Dhimitude. So, 911 was when the modern USA said "No more!" and finally understood that OBL and his ilk were trying to declare war. We just didn't take them seriously for all those prior attacks. We felt the nip of a flea, but the jihadists were announcing "Look! I'm biting a dog and getting away with it! Am I not powerful?"

Terrorism and the New American Republic

In 1786, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson met with Arab diplomats from Tunis, who were conducting terror raids and piracy against American ships.

History records them as the Barbary Pirates. In fact, they were blackmailing terrorists, hiding behind a self-serving interpretation of their Islamic faith by embracing select tracts and ignoring others. Borrowing from the Christian Crusades of centuries past, they used history as a mandate for doing the western world one better. The quisling European powers had been buying them off for years.

On March 28, 1786 Jefferson and Adams detailed what they saw as the main issue:

“We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretensions to make war upon a Nation who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

Thomas Jefferson wanted a military solution, but decades of blackmailing the American Republic and enslaving its citizens would continue until the new American nation realized that the only answer to terrorism was force.

"There's a temptation to view all of our problems as unprecedented and all of our threats as new and novel," says George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. Shortly after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, Turley advised some members of Congress who were considering a formal declaration of war against the suspected perpetrators. He invoked the precedent of the Barbary pirates, saying America had every right to attack and destroy the terrorist leadership without declaring war.

"Congress did not actually declare war on the pirates," Turley wrote in a memo, "but 'authorized' the use of force against the regencies after our bribes and ransoms were having no effect. This may have been due to an appreciation that a declaration of war on such petty tyrants would have elevated their status. Accordingly, they were treated as pirates and, after a disgraceful period of accommodation, we hunted them down as pirates."

Because of their outlaw conduct, pirates -- and modern-day terrorists -- put themselves outside protection of the law, according to military strategy expert Dave McIntyre, a former dean at the National War College. "On the high seas if you saw a pirate, you sank the bastard," he says. "You assault pirates, you don't arrest pirates."

Shoot first, ask questions later. Wanted: Dead or alive. Such is our official policy regarding Osama bin Laden, the most infamous outlaw of the era.

One of the enduring lessons of the Barbary campaigns was to never give in to outlaws, whether you call them pirates or terrorists. In the late 1700s, America paid significant blackmail for peace -- shelling out $990,000 to the Algerians alone at a time when national revenues totaled just $7 million.

"Too many concessions have been made to Algiers," U.S. consul William Eaton wrote to the Secretary of State in 1799. "There is but one language which can be held to these people, and this is terror." http://www.dojgov.net/Liberty_Watch.htm

[Jester]

The US of A and Islamic Jihadists are diametrically opposed philosophies. Patrick Henry's "Give me Liberty, or Give me Death" is at direct odds to the islamic fundamentalist notion of Dhimitude.

An interesting turn of phrase, especially in an era so shocked by the idea of suicide bombings in the name of the Palestinians.

-Jester

[Jester]

I wiki'd him, but couldn't substantiate this article's claim about how he killed the terrorists, but nonetheless found it an interesting way to deal with terrorists - at least one I'd never think up.

Is it at all interesting that this same man, despite the most modern army of its day and carte-blance, failed to capture another "terrorist," Francisco "Pancho" Villa, eventually giving up the search and returning home empty-handed?

I think it is.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

An interesting turn of phrase, especially in an era so shocked by the idea of suicide bombings in the name of the Palestinians.

-Jester

Point taken. But, I wouldn't think the American Revolutionaries would find wearing a vest of C4 and climbing onto a bus full of women and children very noble or effective. Their "terror" was more like dressing as natives and tossing a shipment of tea into Boston harbor. The disenfranchised in the middle east need to find more moderate leaders to help them "think" their way through, rather than the zealots and thugs that have rushed into the position. The problem is that the Islamic extremists kill off their own moderate leadership. The early American revolution had its internal rivalries (Federalists vs Republicans), however they tended to think and argue their way through the issues in a civilized manner. The Palestinians have the means to establish their own government on their own territory and build a new nation, if they would only get on with it. The jihadist elements in Hamas and PLO continue to demand a no compromises "Zionists must die" approach that will only lead to decades of violence and terror.

A tangential thought; George Washington lost more battles than any other American general. Imagine if our modern press had been there to take the "realistic" negative side and demoralize the colonies.

"Washington's contribution to victory in the American Revolution was not that of a great battlefield tactician; in fact, he lost more battles than he won, and he sometimes planned operations that were too complicated for his amateur soldiers to execute. However, his overall strategy proved to be successful: keep control of 90% of the population at all times; keep the army intact, suppress the Loyalists; and avoid decisive battles except to exploit enemy mistakes (as at Saratoga and Yorktown)." -- Wikipedia

[eppie]

Hi,
Had that article not been about an American general, would you have been as ready to accept it as true? Your prejudice is showing, and prejudice is the child of stupidity or ignorance -- pick which one applies to you.

-Pete

What are you talking about?
I specifically said that I knew this kind of stories already, also from where I am coming from.
Second, it is not true, so I have no idea what you are whining about now.
Esecially because I gave an explanation about why I think it is a stupid idea, not mentioning once something bad against americans.

[Occhidiangela]

Is it at all interesting that this same man, despite the most modern army of its day and carte-blance, failed to capture another "terrorist," Francisco "Pancho" Villa, eventually giving up the search and returning home empty-handed?

I think it is.

-Jester

Not hardly the most modern army of its day: that would be the Prussians/Germans of Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1916.

The US Army of 1916 was a small professional force yet to be fleshed out into the war time Army that went across the pond a year later. (Note: George S. Patton won some fame for his actions in the Villa Expedition) Villa had an entire population to melt into along the US-Mexican border, which was a notionally Western form of government / culture (albeit in disarray due to the revolutions in series Mexican politics of the day). With three generations of US/Mexican rustling and skullduggery and border wars to rely on for indigenous support, and imbedded interests among an organized social order, the scenarios are hardly comparable.

Wilson's mandate to Pershing was not absolute, given his own political constraints. The punitive expedition sent to curb Villa's cross border raids (and the rather small forces involved) were beset by the usual problems of logistics and movement in pre-mechanized warfare. The operation was hardly of the scope and scale, in time or space, as the colonial style occupation and governance of the Philippines.

The attempt to compare apples and pears misses the mark due to lack of factual context.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

What are you talking about?
I specifically said that I knew this kind of stories already, also from where I am coming from.
Second, it is not true, so I have no idea what you are whining about now.
Esecially because I gave an explanation about why I think it is a stupid idea, not mentioning once something bad against americans.

What isn't true?

Occhi

[eppie]

What isn't true?

Occhi

This story or not? (I checked the links roguebanshee placed). Anyway, no anti-americanism from my side.

[kandrathe]

... Villa had an entire population to melt into along the US-Mexican border, which was a notionally Western form of government / culture (albeit in disarray due to the revolutions in series Mexican politics of the day). With three generations of US/Mexican rustling and skullduggery and border wars to rely on for indigenous support, and imbedded interests among an organized social order, the scenarios are hardly comparable. ...

From what I can tell of the present day, the implementation of law and order in Mexico relies heavily on the honesty and disposition of the local authorities. The further you get from regional capitals the weaker their "justice" system becomes, and in the most remote places graft and corruption are the rule not the exception. So, not much has changed since the days of Dorotheo Arango.

[Jester]

Not hardly the most modern army of its day: that would be the Prussians/Germans of Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1916.

The US Army of 1916 was a small professional force yet to be fleshed out into the war time Army that went across the pond a year later. (Note: George S. Patton won some fame for his actions in the Villa Expedition) Villa had an entire population to melt into along the US-Mexican border, which was a notionally Western form of government / culture (albeit in disarray due to the revolutions in series Mexican politics of the day). With three generations of US/Mexican rustling and skullduggery and border wars to rely on for indigenous support, and imbedded interests among an organized social order, the scenarios are hardly comparable.

Wilson's mandate to Pershing was not absolute, given his own political constraints. The punitive expedition sent to curb Villa's cross border raids (and the rather small forces involved) were beset by the usual problems of logistics and movement in pre-mechanized warfare. The operation was hardly of the scope and scale, in time or space, as the colonial style occupation and governance of the Philippines.

The attempt to compare apples and pears misses the mark due to lack of factual context.

Occhi

I was actually referring not the Phillipines, but rather that *other* war your great nation finds itself in. You know, the one where a technologically inferior but nationalistically supported local army is preventing the Americans from doing as they please.

Fine, the US army was probably a hair less advanced, technologically speaking, than their Prussian counterparts, but given the comparison to the forces of Pancho Villa, the difference is trivially small. Both armies used essentially the same level of equipment, in terms of repeating weapons, rifles, aircraft, etc...

Pershing's mandate was pretty wide, given that he was in Mexico with Carranza's explicit go-ahead. Carte-blanche was perhaps a little broad, but there was little opposition from either government to doing what was thought necessary to capture Villa.

Regardless, I still think the basic analogy stands. There are perhaps other models from Pershing's life that have relevance to Iraq than his time in the Phillipines.

-Jester

[Jester]

From what I can tell of the present day, the implementation of law and order in Mexico relies heavily on the honesty and disposition of the local authorities. The further you get from regional capitals the weaker their "justice" system becomes, and in the most remote places graft and corruption are the rule not the exception. So, not much has changed since the days of Dorotheo Arango.

Although, rather hilariously, Villa was the great opponent of the corrupt political clan of Chihuahua, the Terrazas-Creels. His overthrow of the state government was not, by and large, a move towards graft and corruption, but rather away from it.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Although, rather hilariously, Villa was the great opponent of the corrupt political clan of Chihuahua, the Terrazas-Creels. His overthrow of the state government was not, by and large, a move towards graft and corruption, but rather away from it.

-Jester

That depends on what you call criminal. Carranza and Obregón were no great saints either, but to choose Pancho and Zapata instead would have been no better.

[Jester]

That depends on what you call criminal. Carranza and Obregón were no great saints either, but to choose Pancho and Zapata instead would have been no better.

Oh, Villa was certainly a criminal. He was an insurgent, a self-confessed murderer, a theif, and, depending on who you ask, a traitor (or a hero).

He wasn't corrupt, though.

-Jester