Solution to beheadings (what if) - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Dragonlich · 06-29-2004, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by apeman
..., or make all the moderate muslims hate you too. it's a fantastic idea.

Well, frankly, I don't give a rat's arse about the hatred of these supposed "moderate muslims". Why exactly should I care? Will moderates suddenly become extremist if we do bad things to terrorists? If so, they weren't very moderate to begin with!

But then again, I prefer security in my country over being loved by muslims for being such an easy target.

oktjabr · 06-29-2004, 10:30 AM

Yeah, I'm sure that desecrating bodies will do a lot good PR for western people among the moderate muslims.

Anyway, if we approach this as a theological problem, do you think that Allah (we assume in this that he exists and thinks that it's great that fundamentalists kill infidels) would deny the entry to paradise from these terrorists just because infidels and enemies of Allah desecrated their bodies with pig blood?

And rest assured, it wouldn't take long from the religious leaders of islamist fundamentalists to make up an elaborate theological argument to work the way around this. After all - Quran also more or less forbids suicide, too.

And how relieved I'm that this is only a crazy internet thread on some forum and that it is very, very unlikely that I should ever see people commiting these desecrations.

apeman · 06-29-2004, 12:05 PM

how many muslims are there in the world? a lot ... most numbers i looked at were over a billion. in my opinion, pissing them all off is not good strategy...

Sparhawk · 06-29-2004, 01:50 PM

Quote:

blah blah blah Pershing blah blah

I love me some snopes: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.htm

Quote:

The history of the American administration of the Philippines between the Spanish cession of the islands at the conclusion of the Spanish-American war in 1898 and the attainment of full political independence in 1946 — including American attempts to "pacify" various independence-minded groups through military means — is too long and complicated to explicate here. Suffice it to say that General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing was part of the process as Governor of the troublesome Moro Province between 1909 and 1913. We haven't yet found any references to this alleged incident in Pershing biographies, however, nor does it match the way Pershing is generally recorded as having dealt with the Moros in 1911. When they refused to obey Pershing's order banning firearms by surrendering their weapons, his response was to draft a letter to the Moros expressing sorrow that his soldiers had to resort to killing to enforce the order:

I write you this letter because I am sorry to know that you and your people refuse to do what the government has ordered. You do not give up your arms. Soldiers were sent to Taglibi so that you could come into camp and turn in your guns. When the soldiers went to camp a Taglibi, your Moros fired into camp and tried to kill the soldiers. Then the soldiers had to shoot all Moros who fired upon them. When the soldiers marched through the country, the Moros again shot at them, so the soldiers had to kill several others. I am sorry the soldiers had to kill any Moros. All Moros are the same to me as my children and no father wants to kill his own children . . .
When negotiations stalled and matters came to a head, Pershing was still reluctant to be responsible for any more loss of life than was necessary:

[Vandiver, 1977]
[Pershing] went to his offices on [14 December 1911] only to hear a message from the Sulu district governor: hundreds of hostiles gathered on Jolo's Bud Dajo! The message had dread portent. Mount Dajo, awesomely high and capped with the creater of an extinct volcano, meant sacred things to Moros. It was the refuge against fate, the last bastion of the hopeless, the place where their ancestors stood off great waves of enemies. Once on the mountain, esconced in its big cotta, Moros would die gladly, as Leonard Wood had grimly learned. Retreat to Dajo meant a clear declaration of war.

Sobered and depressed, Jack wrote of an overriding worry: "I am sorry these Moros are such fools, but . . . I shall lose as few men and kill as few Moros as possible." Memories of Wood's massacre of men and families on Dajo rankled in the army and still bothered the chief of staff. Obviously another such slaughter in the winter of 1911 could adversely influence the 1912 elections in the States.

Pershing's strategy was to surround the Moros and wait them out while attempting to induce them to surrender, a strategy that worked effectively: the Bud Dajo campaign ended with only twelve Moro casualties. But in his report Pershing seemed keenly aware that the best approach was not to take any action that would encourage religious fanaticism:

There was never a moment during this investment of Bud Dajo when the Moros, including women, on top of the mountain, would not have fought to the death had they been given the opportunity. They had gone there to make a last stand on this, their sacred mountain, and they were determined to die fighting . . . It was only by the greatest effort that their solid determination to fight it out could be broken. The fact is that they were completely surprised at the prompt and decisive action of the troops in cutting off supplies and preventing escape, and they were chagrined and disappointed in that they were not encouraged to die the death of Mohammedan fanatics.
Other anecdotal accounts attribute Pershing's success to his merely threatening to do as described:

Col. John J Pershing threatened the mullahs with . . . "splattering of pigs-blood on your houses and families and any who attack us and are killed will be buried in pig-skins." Consequently the mullahs made Pershing an Honorary Chieftan with little if any more trouble in his area of command.
Yet another account, from the 1938 book Jungle Patrol, attributes the deed to someone other than Pershing:

It was Colonel Alexander Rodgers of the 6th Cavalry who accomplished by taking advantage of religious prejudice what the bayonets and Krags had been unable to accomplish. Rodgers inaugurated a system of burying all dead juramentados in a common grave with the carcasses of slaughtered pigs. The Mohammedan religion forbids contact with pork; and this relatively simple device resulted in the withdrawal of juramentados to sections not containing a Rodgers. Other officers took up the principle, adding new refinements to make it additionally unattractive to the Moros. In some sections the Moro juramentado was beheaded after death and the head sewn inside the carcass of a pig. And so the rite of running juramentado, at least semi-religious in character, ceased to be in Sulu. The last cases of this religious mania occurred in the early decades of the century. The juramentados were replaced by the amucks. .. who were simply homicidal maniacs with no religious significance attaching to their acts.

We haven't eliminated ruling out the possibility that Pershing at some point chose to deal with a group of "Mohammedan fanatics" in a manner similar to the one described above, but so far all we've turned up are several different accounts and nothing that documents Pershing's involvement.

cthulu23 · 06-29-2004, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonlich
Well, frankly, I don't give a rat's arse about the hatred of these supposed "moderate muslims". Why exactly should I care? Will moderates suddenly become extremist if we do bad things to terrorists? If so, they weren't very moderate to begin with!

But then again, I prefer security in my country over being loved by muslims for being such an easy target.

Haven't we been over this before? If we strike out in the most inflammatory, brutal way then we are ensuring a fresh supply of martyrs for the jihadists. Unlike sports, global politics is not just about kicking the other guys ass. Continuously inflaming existing tensions is the best way to decrease your own security. We don't want to wage war forever, do we?

kutulu · 06-29-2004, 02:16 PM

There's just so much of this cowboy mentality that we can just kill them all. Common sense should lead one to believe that just going in and killing a desectrating bodies at random would evantually ingnite the wrath of the rest of the world and result in a WWIII type scenario. We sure as hell don't want to end up like Germany.

boatin · 06-29-2004, 04:20 PM

this thread is very demoralizing to me. i recognize that writing a response isn't gonna change anyone's mind, but anyone familiar with the islands off of italy?

my understanding is that there are towns without many men, because vendettas keep them all killing each other.

the idea that anyone doesn't care what a significant percentage of the world thinks is astonishing to me. i'm not just talking about what the terrorist-types think, but people that could be allies.

if we start violating the geneva convention, or messing with our prisoners religious traditions, we lose even more support around the world. europe, asia, everywhere. does anyone think it's just fine if we (the USA) goes it alone?

i'm sure Gandhi would have been more successful if he'd just kicked a little ass.

the high road does come cheap, or easy. but it's the best solution for making the world a better place. and it's entirely possible to protect yourself in self defence and still take the high road....

wonderwench · 06-29-2004, 04:37 PM

Let's consider the UN as a proxy for the world. The majority of member nations have totalitarian forms of government in which the subjects are enslaved and brutalized or are decadents on the decline. Why should we worry about their opinions when their value systems are anathema to our own?

Does it really make sense to take the high road when doing so enables the enemy to use our values (ie, open society) against us?

cthulu23 · 06-29-2004, 04:57 PM

This graph seems to contradict the idea that most countries are despotic hellholes. Notice how the number of democracies has been steadily increasing. Perhaps we shouldn't forget our values and abandon the rest of the world.....

wonderwench · 06-29-2004, 05:03 PM

Hmmm...interesting correlation with winning the Cold War.

The graph is not accurate in that includes as democracies countries which are brutally authoritarian, such as Zimbabwe. Unless a democracy has a constitution and institutions which protect human rights, it is erroneous to consider it a functioning democracy.

cthulu23 · 06-29-2004, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wonderwench
Hmmm...interesting correlation with winning the Cold War.

The graph is not accurate in that includes as democracies countries which are brutally authoritarian, such as Zimbabwe. Unless a democracy has a constitution and institutions which protect human rights, it is erroneous to consider it a functioning democracy.

So we should cut ourselves off from the outside world rather than engage with our neighbors and encourage a free society? That seems to go against 200 years of democratic tradition (not to mention economic necessity). Fortress America can be no more....we live in a globalized world and must learn to coexist,

wonderwench · 06-29-2004, 05:33 PM

No, that is not what I said. Your graph demonstrates the benefit to the world of America's efforts to end the Cold War and encourage the spread of democracy.

The UN, however, has morphed into a Society for the Preservation of Despots. When countries such as Sudan can sit on the Human Rights Council, something is seriously wrong. Add to that the inexcusable fraud and corruption of the Oil for Food Program and the recent Deloitte Touche survey, which uncovered the huge ethical problems within the organization, and we can see that the UN has serious problems of credibility.

IMO, it is time to replace the UN with an organization in which membership is predicated upon the practise of acceptable human rights.

Boo · 06-29-2004, 05:51 PM

I say put an arms imbargo on them and enforce it. Let them destroy themselves from within.

Beheading one would just start a ring of everexpanding death.

I still don't understand why there is not enough internal pressure to stop the asshats from resorting to med-evil means. Yes, we have made a few fouls, but these people are still way overboard.

cthulu23 · 06-29-2004, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wonderwench
No, that is not what I said. Your graph demonstrates the benefit to the world of America's efforts to end the Cold War and encourage the spread of democracy.

The UN, however, has morphed into a Society for the Preservation of Despots. When countries such as Sudan can sit on the Human Rights Council, something is seriously wrong. Add to that the inexcusable fraud and corruption of the Oil for Food Program and the recent Deloitte Touche survey, which uncovered the huge ethical problems within the organization, and we can see that the UN has serious problems of credibility.

IMO, it is time to replace the UN with an organization in which membership is predicated upon the practise of acceptable human rights.

The problem with this idea is that the US has a horrible record when it comes to supporting human rights. We may be okay when compared to China, but we have a rich history of supporting the worst despots for our own political motives. Would we be barred from entry in your new governing body?

About the graph...I thought that you said it was a farce...how can it be that and simultaneously prove the democratizing power of the US?

I did not brng up the UN. The UN is irrelevant here. What is relevant is that we must take global politics into consideration with our actions lest we alienate our allies.

wonderwench · 06-29-2004, 06:07 PM

As you linked the graph, I assumed that you supported what it represents.

You are using the "U.S. is not perfect so we are just as bad as those who murder millions of their own citizens" rationale. Please show me documentation of the mass graves filled with brutally murdered U.S. citizens on the part of our government. This bit of G2 has quite escaped my notice.

Human rights are first and foremost the responsibility of a nation's government. The U.S. is responsible for U.S. citizens. Other governments are responsible for the welfare of their own. When we do interfere in the internal politics of another nation, the justification must include that it is in the interests of our own national security to do so.

nanofever · 06-29-2004, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wonderwench
When we do interfere in the internal politics of another nation, the justification must include that it is in the interests of our own national security to do so.

Does that mean that you do not support the occupation of Iraq? Because a whole lot of REALLY informed/intelligent people are suggesting that we are less secure now.

brianna · 06-29-2004, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cthulu23
The problem with this idea is that the US has a horrible record when it comes to supporting human rights. We may be okay when compared to China, but we have a rich history of supporting the worst despots for our own political motives. Would we be barred from entry in your new governing body?

exactly! in the eyes of most democratic nations (ie pretty much everyone besides the USA) things like the death penalty, locking up a prisoner without charging them with a crime and preemptively attacking other sovern nations are considered unacceptable practices. you can't advocate building an international organization based only on the values of the USA.

sources:
http://www.hrw.org/doc/?t=usa

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-index-eng

wonderwench · 06-29-2004, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nanofever
Does that mean that you do not support the occupation of Iraq? Because a whole lot of REALLY informed/intelligent people are suggesting that we are less secure now.

I disagree with that assessment. We are more secure for having moved the front line of the war on terror back to the Mid-East.

cthulu23 · 06-29-2004, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wonderwench
As you linked the graph, I assumed that you supported what it represents.

I don't happen to think that you can simultaneously reject and accept a piece of evidence, but logic, like everything, is subjective.

Quote:

You are using the "U.S. is not perfect so we are just as bad as those who murder millions of their own citizens" rationale. Please show me documentation of the mass graves filled with brutally murdered U.S. citizens on the part of our government. This bit of G2 has quite escaped my notice.

I am referring to actions that the United States is directly complicent in, not any vague moral equivication. Our government as supported terrible people....no one can contest that.

Quote:

Human rights are first and foremost the responsibility of a nation's government. The U.S. is responsible for U.S. citizens. Other governments are responsible for the welfare of their own. When we do interfere in the internal politics of another nation, the justification must include that it is in the interests of our own national security to do so.

Security is always the justification for a war. Whether or not it is a true claim depends on the war.

cosmoknight · 06-29-2004, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kutulu
There's just so much of this cowboy mentality that we can just kill them all. Common sense should lead one to believe that just going in and killing a desectrating bodies at random would evantually ingnite the wrath of the rest of the world and result in a WWIII type scenario. We sure as hell don't want to end up like Germany.

Aren't we already there with their anti western bias? Remember its not what you did its who you are that they hate. You can't appease someone with such hatred as they will only use the time you are explaining your views to them against you. Wahhabism is being taught through much of the ME and is taking on the mainstream version of Islam. These radicals view all non Islams as infidels so don't confuse them. Someone with the rationality of willing to blow himself up in order to gain favor simply can't be bargained with. One can easily draw a parallel to fighting the Japanese during WW2 who refused quarter and offerd none themselves. Only by toppling the leadership and killing 1000's was any chance at change actually gained. Change is needed as the time for religious crusades such as theirs is passed in a civilized world.

nanofever · 06-29-2004, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wonderwench
I disagree with that assessment. We are more secure for having moved the front line of the war on terror back to the Mid-East.

How can a war on terror have a front line, seriously? You're just spewing militaristic rhetoric.

apeman · 06-30-2004, 12:19 AM

the man's got a point there... surely the war on terror is taking place everywhere?

SLM3 · 06-30-2004, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by wonderwench
Some food for thought:

General Black Jack Pershing:
was born Septs. 13, 1860 near Laclede MS. He died July 15, 1948 in Washingtone D.C. Highlights of his life are as follows:
1891 Prof. of Military Science and Tactics University of Nebraska
1898 Serves in the Spanish American War
1901 Promoted to rank of Captain
1906 Promoted to rank of Brigadeer General
1909 Military Govenor of Moro Province, Phillippines
1916 Made Major General
1919 Promoted to General of Armies
1921 Appointed Chief of Staff
1924 Retires from Active Duty

Just before WWl, there were a number of attacks on the U.S. Forces in the Phillippins 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. Muslims detest pork because they beleive pigs are filthy animals. Some of them simply refuse to eat it, while others won`t even touch pigs ay all, nor any of there by-products. To them, eating of touching a pig, it`s meat it`s blood ect., is to be instantly barred from Paradise (and the virgins) and doomed to hell. 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 terrorists bodies and covered them in pigs blood and entrails ect. They let the 50th terrorist go. And for the next 42 years there was not a single Muslim extemist attack anywhere in the world. Maybe it`s time for this segment of history to repeat itself, maybe in Iraq.

Geez, do you post every silly forward that comes your way?

Simple Google Search

SLM3

oktjabr · 06-30-2004, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by cosmoknight
Aren't we already there with their anti western bias? Remember its not what you did its who you are that they hate.

I don't agree with this. The situation might be bad and going to wrong direction - but it doesn't mean it couldn't be even worse. The fundamentalists might hate the west just because "we" are infidels, but I don't really believe this means that ordinary (and maybe uneducated & poor) islamic people don't care what the west does or doesn't do.

I think that this "what do we care?"-attitude relates to the feeling that the west (or usually just the USA) could just "kick their asses, no matter how many of them came." The truth is that no army is invincible - and even in the most militaristic dreams it would be impossible for the west to occupy and pacify the whole islam world. Now I'll just wait someone to mention the nuclear weapons...

Anyway - if we assess this scenario (to answer beheadings with brutality and desecrations) coldly and cynically, it is rather clear that the government knows that possible benefits (terrorists scared and fleeing) are dwarfed by the negative consequences.

MSD · 07-02-2004, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wonderwench
I disagree with that assessment. We are more secure for having moved the front line of the war on terror back to the Mid-East.

I have to disagree wit hyour assessment. Before teh Iraq invasion, we were more secure, as there were no mobs of insurgents attacking or beheading anyone just for being westerners. We've found no connection between Saddam's government and Al-Quaeda, no Iraqi weapons were used in any terrorist attack on the US, and no terrorist attack against us was funded by the Iraqi government.

06-29-2004, 10:30 AM	#42 (permalink)
oktjabr Crazy Location: Fünland	Yeah, I'm sure that desecrating bodies will do a lot good PR for western people among the moderate muslims. Anyway, if we approach this as a theological problem, do you think that Allah (we assume in this that he exists and thinks that it's great that fundamentalists kill infidels) would deny the entry to paradise from these terrorists just because infidels and enemies of Allah desecrated their bodies with pig blood? And rest assured, it wouldn't take long from the religious leaders of islamist fundamentalists to make up an elaborate theological argument to work the way around this. After all - Quran also more or less forbids suicide, too. And how relieved I'm that this is only a crazy internet thread on some forum and that it is very, very unlikely that I should ever see people commiting these desecrations. __________________ "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face -- forever." -G.O.

06-29-2004, 12:05 PM	#43 (permalink)
apeman Wah Location: NZ	how many muslims are there in the world? a lot ... most numbers i looked at were over a billion. in my opinion, pissing them all off is not good strategy... __________________ pain is inevitable but misery is optional - stick a geranium in your hat and be happy

06-29-2004, 05:51 PM	#53 (permalink)
Boo Leave me alone! Location: Alaska, USA	I say put an arms imbargo on them and enforce it. Let them destroy themselves from within. Beheading one would just start a ring of everexpanding death. I still don't understand why there is not enough internal pressure to stop the asshats from resorting to med-evil means. Yes, we have made a few fouls, but these people are still way overboard. __________________ Back button again, I must be getting old.

06-30-2004, 12:19 AM	#62 (permalink)
apeman Wah Location: NZ	the man's got a point there... surely the war on terror is taking place everywhere? __________________ pain is inevitable but misery is optional - stick a geranium in your hat and be happy

06-29-2004, 02:16 PM	#46 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	There's just so much of this cowboy mentality that we can just kill them all. Common sense should lead one to believe that just going in and killing a desectrating bodies at random would evantually ingnite the wrath of the rest of the world and result in a WWIII type scenario. We sure as hell don't want to end up like Germany.

06-29-2004, 04:20 PM	#47 (permalink)
boatin Psycho	this thread is very demoralizing to me. i recognize that writing a response isn't gonna change anyone's mind, but anyone familiar with the islands off of italy? my understanding is that there are towns without many men, because vendettas keep them all killing each other. the idea that anyone doesn't care what a significant percentage of the world thinks is astonishing to me. i'm not just talking about what the terrorist-types think, but people that could be allies. if we start violating the geneva convention, or messing with our prisoners religious traditions, we lose even more support around the world. europe, asia, everywhere. does anyone think it's just fine if we (the USA) goes it alone? i'm sure Gandhi would have been more successful if he'd just kicked a little ass. the high road does come cheap, or easy. but it's the best solution for making the world a better place. and it's entirely possible to protect yourself in self defence and still take the high road....

06-29-2004, 04:37 PM	#48 (permalink)
wonderwench Banned	Let's consider the UN as a proxy for the world. The majority of member nations have totalitarian forms of government in which the subjects are enslaved and brutalized or are decadents on the decline. Why should we worry about their opinions when their value systems are anathema to our own? Does it really make sense to take the high road when doing so enables the enemy to use our values (ie, open society) against us?

06-29-2004, 04:57 PM	#49 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	This graph seems to contradict the idea that most countries are despotic hellholes. Notice how the number of democracies has been steadily increasing. Perhaps we shouldn't forget our values and abandon the rest of the world.....

06-29-2004, 05:03 PM	#50 (permalink)
wonderwench Banned	Hmmm...interesting correlation with winning the Cold War. The graph is not accurate in that includes as democracies countries which are brutally authoritarian, such as Zimbabwe. Unless a democracy has a constitution and institutions which protect human rights, it is erroneous to consider it a functioning democracy.

06-29-2004, 05:33 PM	#52 (permalink)
wonderwench Banned	No, that is not what I said. Your graph demonstrates the benefit to the world of America's efforts to end the Cold War and encourage the spread of democracy. The UN, however, has morphed into a Society for the Preservation of Despots. When countries such as Sudan can sit on the Human Rights Council, something is seriously wrong. Add to that the inexcusable fraud and corruption of the Oil for Food Program and the recent Deloitte Touche survey, which uncovered the huge ethical problems within the organization, and we can see that the UN has serious problems of credibility. IMO, it is time to replace the UN with an organization in which membership is predicated upon the practise of acceptable human rights.

06-29-2004, 06:07 PM	#55 (permalink)
wonderwench Banned	As you linked the graph, I assumed that you supported what it represents. You are using the "U.S. is not perfect so we are just as bad as those who murder millions of their own citizens" rationale. Please show me documentation of the mass graves filled with brutally murdered U.S. citizens on the part of our government. This bit of G2 has quite escaped my notice. Human rights are first and foremost the responsibility of a nation's government. The U.S. is responsible for U.S. citizens. Other governments are responsible for the welfare of their own. When we do interfere in the internal politics of another nation, the justification must include that it is in the interests of our own national security to do so.