Posted on 02/26/2016 12:58:06 PM PST by Stepan12
A century before American soldiers fought Muslim terrorism in the Middle East, they fought it in the Philippines. Their attackers were Moro Muslims whose savage fanaticism appeared inexplicable. A formerly friendly Muslim might suddenly attack American soldiers, local Muslim rulers promised friendship while secretly aiding the terrorists and the yellow left-wing press at home seized on every report of an atrocity to denounce American soldiers as murderers whose honor was forever soiled.
Much of what went on in that conflict, including the sacrifices of our soldiers, has been forgotten. The erasure has been so thorough that the media casually claims that the American forces did not use pig corpses and pig’s blood to deter Muslim terrorists. Media fact checks have deemed it a “legendâ€.
It’s not a legend. It’s history.
The practice began in the Spanish period. A source as mainstream as the New Cambridge History of Islam informs us that, "To discourage Juramentados, the Spaniards buried their corpses with dead pigs."
Juramentados was the Spanish term for the Muslim Jihadists who carried out suicide attacks against Christians while shouting about Allah. American forces, who had little experience with Muslim terrorists, adopted the term and the Spanish tactics of burying Muslim terrorists alongside dead pigs.
It was a less sensitive age and even the New York Times blithely observed that, “The Moros, though they still admire these frenzied exits from the world, have practically ceased to utilize them, since when a pig and a man occupy a single grave the future of the one and the other are in their opinions about equal."
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
I DID NOT POINT TO IT AS MY AUTHORITY - it was one of many that I saw on my search. I think you’re the one grasping at any straw to prove your guy. I don’t care one way or other whether Greenfield is right or wrong. It makes not an iota of difference to me if you have a shrine to him. You stated you believed what he said and that ended that.
You put your foot in it bigtime by using that rabid muslim site as your “authority.”
Your ignorance of Daniel Greenfield shows you are completely oblivious of all the FR thread consisting of articles by him.
You aggressively tried to attack the credibility of the article using your muslim authority
and ended up only showing how clueless you were about the site you put forward AND about writer Greenfield.
You should hide your head in shame.
Great post.
As I said previously which you chose to ignore: It was not my authority go to site. It was just one of many that mentioned your hero. Thanks for playing and you have a Nice Day.
It was the ONLY site you posted.
Army History magazine, Spring 2011 issue, has a cover story (page 30) called “The Violent End of Insurgency on Samar, 1901-1902.” It is a very good description of the brutality of the fight, and the hard American commanders who led it.
http://www.history.army.mil/armyhistory/AH79%28W%29r.pdf
In their hands they had the potent Army General Order 100 (aka the Lieber Code) which came about during the US Civil War. It outlined the Federal army code of conduct during war, as well as the Institution of Martial Law and treatment of civilians.
While the Lieber Code eventually served as nucleus for the Geneva Conventions, it clearly distinguishes the treatment of hostile civilians during wartime, from jurisprudence during times of peace.
I would like this Pershing story to be true. Have not seen any contemporaneous verification.
Thanks for the link.
I just texted Brian Williams to verify the story as I am sure he was there.
Few things make me irrevocably lose trust in a media outlet than when it cites the Southern Poverty Law Center as a legitimate source of information.
I agree, there really is no substantive evidence backing up the claim........Just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's true........but you know that..... :)
Don’t Trust Snopes!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Preaching to the choir.
You are correct. Snopes has been caught before, but they do what all liberals do when busted: they continue the behavior blithely and ignore the attempt to hold them accountable.
The Mikkelsons, who own the site, have been together since the 90's. They're screaming liberals; she's from Canada, he from UCLA. They lead an arty-clever existence in a trailer, working separately at either end, sharing an endless circulation of several cats. An experiment in using the cats as couriers of post-it notes to aid workflow several years ago didn't work, in common with all known attempts to enlist the cooperation of cats.
To see their bias in color, visit the UL listings about Pres. Geo. W. Bush, and then their listing for Obama. Many, many more assertions about Obama are disputed or falsified (by them), and in fact just about the only charges they cop to, are those backed up with indisputable photo evidence. It takes a living-color, got-him-cold photo to nail their dancing feet to the floor.
They are also partly funded by George Soros.
Somehow the last 2 posts
“living in a trailer”
and
“funded by George Soros”
seem incompatible, LOL
Thanks.
That’s a keeper! (Any fools who mess with mama’s babies will bring doom on their arses, too!)
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.