Posted on 08/17/2017 11:57:02 AM PDT by barmag25
1. It didn’t happen.
2. But when was it ever acceptable US military practice to line up prisoners and shoot them? George Washington formally established the tradition of following “the laws of war.”
I am VERY concerned about the truth of something, and how we look like damned fools when we spout something that is false.
Hell, I even worry about accuracy in horse-racing history when arguing there, and that’s not near as important as politics. Same reason - don’t look like fools!
Please, read the article with comprehension.
It’s NOT the Wash. Post, and no, it does NOT come from c1900.
“hang a Moro chieftain by the heels over an open grave, kill a pig, and then drop the Moro into the grave with the bloody animal,”
This was the letter written by 1 man 60 years later, NOT contemporaneously. (And yes, it would be amazing only 1 man witnessed it; why not more corroboration?)
It may imply but does not say the chief was buried, but he did have to mingle with dead bloody pig.
I myself am “self-educated” when it comes to history beyond the standard HS requirements, as it is an avocation, and frankly I know a whole lot more than most, to answer your educated question, “where were educated”.
When the media are reporting about us or our allies, they are going to portray it as "false", or "wrong", or "ignorant", or anything derogatory.
It is impossible to be so careful that they cannot twist it into something Ugly. Reagan could do it, but he had a rare gift, and they even got him some of the time.
Hell, I even worry about accuracy in horse-racing history when arguing there, and that’s not near as important as politics. Same reason - don’t look like fools!
Can't be helped. So long as the liberals own the microphones and cameras, they will make us look like fools or worse. Notice how they covered the Charlotte violence?
They have the power to make us look like fools or worse, and so they will. What we should be doing is discussing how to pry that power out of their hands and turn it back against them.
I've found two other sources for US Military in the Philippines using pigs to deter Muslim terrorists.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9F00E0DF1139E333A25751C2A9649D946297D6CF&legacy=true
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/162096
And this as well.
http://heavy.com/news/2017/08/general-pershing-trump-bullets-dipped-in-pigs-blood-myth/
What is your point?
There is not one of these supporting the “killed49-released1” story.
It’s not too shocking that some pig stuff might be used to help control Moslems, but the fact remains none of them support what Trump originally stated and implied again today.
That looks stupid. He should stop wildly “tweeting” (sounds so gay, anyway) whatever the hell he wants shooting off his mouth; it’s a waste of time, anyway. What the hell does he do between all those tweets, campaign-like “rallies” and MaraLago visits, anyway?
That is true, but all of them confirm the use of pigs and pigs blood as a weapon against Muslims during the Phillipne insurrection.
Whether or not the killed 49 story is true is irrelevant to the point that pigs were used as a weapon against Muslim terrorists.
That looks stupid. He should stop wildly “tweeting” (sounds so gay, anyway) whatever the hell he wants shooting off his mouth; it’s a waste of time, anyway. What the hell does he do between all those tweets, campaign-like “rallies” and MaraLago visits, anyway?
It might have been calculated to knock the "Trump supports the Nazis in Charlotte" Narrative off the evening News.
Something I have noticed about Trump's methodology is a tactic I have used on occasion myself. Say something that is not quite true, and your opponent will go to a lot of trouble looking it up and reading about it just so they can say "Ah Ha! I caught you! You are wrong about this particular point! " In the meantime, they've learned the salient facts of what you wanted them to learn.
By exaggerating, you forced them to look more closely at the information you wanted out there.
Now people are going to be looking this up and finding out that it does have a basis in truth, even though these specific details may be exaggerated.
And it might get the media off the "Trump supports Nazis" bullsh*t they are spouting now. To the salient point here, the details of how they were used as a weapon don't really matter, do they?
It take it as a given that the story was exaggerated, but it's core message survived. Pigs blood deters Muslim murderers.
It’s one of these things that probably did happen, but I would think Pershing and his descendants and maybe even the Army white washed the truth. It seemed that it is more than just a legend over there, it’s discussed as the truth.
We know for sure that his subordinates did this. Are there any examples of them being disciplined? No. I would think if you were in Pershing’s army, or Patton’s for that matter, you took your orders or your sense of orders, from their example.
If I’m betting, I’d say the story is probably true, or at least Pershing made these people back then think it was true.
The 49 killed story does not appear to have any solid references that have emerged so far, but focusing on those alleged details misses the real point of using pigs as a weapon against Muslim Terrorists.
There is a form of fallacy argument in which you attempt to dismiss the whole by finding one flaw in a minor detail. That is what is being attempted by the critics of Trump who say "The 49 killed thing never happened!"
They are attempting to deligitimize the entire point on the basis that some details might be not clearly supported by the record.
It's a form of lying.
Did you hear about this Shep Smith rolling the eyes?
You’re right, the point is missed. Our president is giving us a window into his head on how he plans to deal with thugs and rogue heads of state.
I’ve only read about people like Trump. He’s Patton, Stonewall Jackson, Andrew Jackson and a whole host of other Alpha males. They rarely become president.
My father once told me, don’t be stupid when deciding a fight, but if you back down, then someone less than the guy you backed away from, will come after you.
Trump is not backing down from anyone, when he’s attacked.
It is what we need now. I just wish he would start doing damage to people who are trying to topple him, say like telling the head of GE (I think they still own ABC) that the US Federal Government needs to look more closely at their corporation with an eye at rooting out corruption or anti-trust law violations.
Obama would not hesitate to threaten companies who he thought were causing him trouble.
What we need in this country are more prosecutions of Democrat violations of law (such as Hillary and her associates) and also more scrutiny of companies allied with Democrats.
Google needs to be busted up with anti-monopoly law. So does Facebook and Twitter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.