200,000 civilian deaths was what was needed to win

200,000 deaths is "little"?

If you are referring to the Moro's, that wasn't an insurrection, that was the United States invading their island and they engaging the US in pitched battles, in which the American military obviously held a massive advantage. Their losses were further compounded by the fact they never liked to withdraw once they were committed to a battle, which is pretty much the opposite of how you do guerrilla warfare.

If you are referring to the war against the Philippines in general, it again wasn't an insurrection but an attempt to kick imperialist and colonial aggressors out of their country. Which involved their actual army, again fighting in regular battles which they lost. Then they also started to stage guerrilla raids and the US responded by acting like Nazis, except back then Nazis weren't a thing yet. And while American brutality no doubt played a factor in their overall victory, it was simply that the army defeated the Philippines leader and overall army in a regular way (they actually caught their leader).

BTW 3: Yes... We did defeat the Guerrilla Movement (Viet Cong) in Vietnam, during 1968. I was there, and they were totally slaughtered.

Afterwards, it was a conventional war against the North Vietnamese Army. Guided the the Best General of the war: General Võ Nguyên Giáp.

Wrong, you actually kicked the North Vietnamese army out of South Vietnam after they consistently suffered heavy losses by engaging the US military in traditional set piece battles (for example around Khe Sahn, incidentally I believe it were the losses suffered at Khe Sahn that made them decide to only support the guerrilla forces in the South). Yes, the guerrilla movement sustained extremely heavy losses after the failed Tet offensive. In fact, the Vietcong lost almost every battle in terms of casualties. But thats the problem of guerrilla warfare. You can actually lose every battle, but if you are not utterly destroyed, you can take those losses and the casualties and still win the overall war. Which is exactly what happened in Vietnam. Despite the US winning literally every major engagement, despite the Vietnamese casualties were much higher than US casualties, for the Vietnamese this was all very sustainable while the US couldn't handle the costs and had to withdraw. You won all the battles but you lost the war.

A General with Strategic Understanding. Unlike our Generals and Presidents.

And unlike you.

Great post but ruined by your last 3 words.

Negative. Not in Europe either.
Another clue: Early last century, and middle last century.

Note: For some inexplicable reason. These two victory's are neither taught, nor noted in American History courses. I did at times, to make a point.

The first time was very, very, very bloody. It did result in a new weapon. Which was/is very effective in killing. Probably the most effective weapon, of its type, ever conceived. Still in use today, and legal.

Hmm, conflict in the Philippines, in particular that little fight with the Moro's? It wouldn't surprise me if America avoids talking about its role in the Philippines. You guys come out of that one looking like Nazis. Putting people in concentration camps, starving them to death.
And that little conflict with the Moro's is hardly an insurrection, let alone a guerrilla war.

200,000 civilian deaths was what was needed to win
200,000 deaths is "little"?
BTW: The weapon referred to was the Colt M1911 Pistol .45ACP.
I have seen, too many times, 9mm, 38 Special, .357 Magnum, and .45 ACP used to kill human beings. .The 45 ACP is the most effective.
BTW 2: We, with the assistance of the Filipino Army, also defeated them in the Insurrection of 1946-1949.
BTW 3: Yes... We did defeat the Guerrilla Movement (Viet Cong) in Vietnam, during 1968. I was there, and they were totally slaughtered.
Afterwards, it was a conventional war against the North Vietnamese Army. Guided the the Best General of the war: General Võ Nguyên Giáp.
A General with Strategic Understanding. Unlike our Generals and Presidents.

There seems that all countries has black pages in their history books.
Comments on the Moro Massacre by Mark Twain (March 12, 1906)
http://drnissani.net/MNISSANI/cr/moro.htm

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/10/israeli-forces-gas-die-151031140951304.html

Israeli border police have issued a shocking threat to Palestinians in Aida refugee camp, saying, "We will gas you until you die," in an apparent response to stone-throwing.

In a one-minute video of the incident recorded on Thursday by a resident of the West Bank camp, an Israeli border officer speaking in Arabic reads the chilling message over a loudspeaker as an Israeli jeep rolls slowly down the street.

---

The Israelis are, as all people, with sin.

The Palestinian Leadership [sic]. By embracing this Nazi belief.

Are...

Riiight, the Israeli's, who only recently claimed that it was the Palestinian grand Mufti who came up with the holocaust (which is a blatant historical falsehood) are only with sin. The Israeli's who consistently and systematically shoot and kill children are only with sin. The Israeli's who punish entire communities for the crimes of one individual are only with sin. The Israeli's who systematically steal Palestinian land are only with sin.

But the Palestinians yelling 'death to to the Jews' are the real monsters here and we should give the Israeli's a carte blanche to deal with them.

Why do you excuse and/or fail to continually mention, "Death to The Jews"?

Clyde, why are you incapable of reading and comprehending? Or is your problem that you can't remember like dementia? Is it on purpose so you can speak with forked tongue? Perhaps you are fishing by trailing a line off a moving boat?

---

Clyde, why are you incapable of reading and comprehending? Or is your problem that you can't remember like dementia? Is it on purpose so you can speak with forked tongue? Perhaps you are fishing by trailing a line off a moving boat?

There are trolls.

And there are trolls.

And a Syrian troll.

Note his index finger!
Some say that is glorifying ISIS!

Clyde, they're talking about you and no one else, so you're just proving how clueless you are to the real modern world.

Cheers.

Christianity also has its past. But evolved beyond its own barbarism.

Apparently NOT!
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/14/police-say-couple-beat-son-to-death-in-new-york-church/

Who would equate/compare this individual heinous act with The Jihadists, Taliban etc.?

What? You don't think that comparing one follower of the God of Abraham to another follower of the God of Abraham is valid? Does that hit too close to your own comfort? Are you trying to say The Jihadists, Taliban don't do things with individual heinous acts? Is it because they get away with more acts? Every group starts with the first act! Or, are you denying that as well?

Gary...

We do understand you.

Is not the KKK an extremist Christian group that hs and, to a degree, continues to commit widespread terror?

Attribution? Including 'the numbers'.

It is the Extremest Islamist, who are committing these mass murdering, raping, enslavement, and atrocities. In The Name of Their Religion.

Today: What mass murdering, raping, enslavement, and atrocities, are being committed in The Name of Christianity? Not just by people who happen to be Christians, Buddhists, etc.

Sarge...

You made the comment. Please educate us with 'the numbers'.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/kkk-leader-were-a-christian-organization-claims-the-klan-is-not-a-hate-group-116614/

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/stormfront

Created by former Alabama Klan boss and long-time white supremacist Don Black in 1995, Stormfront was the first major hate site on the Internet.

... Southern Poverty Law Center’s exposure of the identity of many Stormfront funders and the fact its registered users have been behind almost 100 murders ...

http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/kkk/default.html?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=4&item=kkk

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

http://armyofgod.com/EricRudolphHomepage.html

Sarge...

Just one question.

Since all movements, both religious and secular, have their 'crazies':

Would you rather have your loved ones, including your women, children, gay friends/family/significant other. Live in an area controlled by the Jihadists, or Christians?

Many decisions in life, are a choice between Bad and Less Bad.

Why juxtapose the "crazies" of one religion with the entirety of another?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Sarge...

Just one question.

Since all movements, both religious and secular, have their 'crazies':

Would you rather have your loved ones, including your women, children, gay friends/family/significant other. Live in an area controlled by the Jihadists, or Christians?

Many decisions in life, are a choice between Bad and Less Bad.

Why juxtapose the "crazies" of one religion with the entirety of another?

bobby...

I understand that you cannot comprehend that the Jihadists, are not mainstream Islam.

Since I only noted the "Jihadists", and not of course, Islam:

Why are you making The Jihadists the "entirety' of Islam.

I am not making the Jihadists the entirety of Islam, nor am I saying that you did. I am commenting on the choice you provided to Sarge (Jihadists [the "crazies"] or Christians [the entirety of a religion]), and asking why you made that choice.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Sarge...

Just one question.

Since all movements, both religious and secular, have their 'crazies':

Would you rather have your loved ones, including your women, children, gay friends/family/significant other. Live in an area controlled by the Jihadists, or Christians?

Many decisions in life, are a choice between Bad and Less Bad.

Why juxtapose the "crazies" of one religion with the entirety of another?

bobby...

I understand that you cannot comprehend that the Jihadists, are not mainstream Islam.

Since I only noted the "Jihadists", and not of course, Islam:

Why are you making The Jihadists the "entirety' of Islam.

I am not making the Jihadists the entirety of Islam, nor am I saying that you did. I am commenting on the choice you provided to Sarge (Jihadists [the "crazies"] or Christians [the entirety of a religion]), and asking why you made that choice.

I would nor want myself nor them living in the midst of any extremists.

As I stated, I was raised Lutheran.

I currently live across the street from a make-shift mosque.

And I was around many Muslims while in grad school. I spent so much time with some of them that I was welcome to break bread with them, among other things. They knew I had been raised Christian, occasionally told me how they thought when I asked and never tried to convert me that I could ever get even the smallest sense of.

As in many cases, I think Bobby answers for himself quite well, but, put another way: given where I understand Bobby to live and work, I think he has many colleagues, acquaintances and friends from many walks of life. Am I correct, Bobby? Jew, Christian, Muslim, atheist, etc. ... ?

Edit to add: also, as mentioned, I have conservative friends, some that might be fundamentalists. (They've never used the term to my knowledge, but it might fit. Might.) I continue to be their friends because: we have shared experiences, we have similar likes, we have similar senses of humor, etc. ... . I continue to talk to them about my views (and they to me about theirs) because maybe one day one of us will get the other to see something in a more nuanced way.

And, because I do not seek power, if one of my friends ever becomes one of those murdering extremists, if I am not the one that is the one to talk them into putting the gun down, I will be one of the first killed instead. OK?

As in many cases, I think Bobby answers for himself quite well, but, put another way: given where I understand Bobby to live and work, I think he has many colleagues, acquaintances and friends from many walks of life. Am I correct, Bobby? Jew, Christian, Muslim, atheist, etc. ... ?

It's no secret that I live and work in NYC, and have done since sometime in 1999. I was raised Catholic, as was my partner. We are both atheists.

In terms of racial background, the apartment building in which we live has a reasonable cross section of NYC residents. During Jewish holidays we frequently get a knock on the door from members of the local orthodox community probably because, even after 8 years of living here, neither my partner nor I have taken the time to remove the Mezuzah that was, presumably, installed by a former resident.

The neighborhood also has a fairly large Bangladeshi community, and we're close enough to the local mosque to hear the adhan.

Given that the local populace generally does not walk around with tags indicating which religion they follow, that's probably covers the most visible religious affiliations. I don't doubt that there are a fair number of Christians of various denominations nearby too. There are certainly churches nearby.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

As in many cases, I think Bobby answers for himself quite well, but, put another way: given where I understand Bobby to live and work, I think he has many colleagues, acquaintances and friends from many walks of life. Am I correct, Bobby? Jew, Christian, Muslim, atheist, etc. ... ?

It's no secret that I live and work in NYC, and have done since sometime in 1999. I was raised Catholic, as was my partner. We are both atheists.

In terms of racial background, the apartment building in which we live has a reasonable cross section of NYC residents. During Jewish holidays we frequently get a knock on the door from members of the local orthodox community probably because, even after 8 years of living here, neither my partner nor I have taken the time to remove the Mezuzah that was, presumably, installed by a former resident.

The neighborhood also has a fairly large Bangladeshi community, and we're close enough to the local mosque to hear the adhan.

Given that the local populace generally does not walk around with tags indicating which religion they follow, that's probably covers the most visible religious affiliations. I don't doubt that there are a fair number of Christians of various denominations nearby too. There are certainly churches nearby.

And I can imagine you're friendly with a lot of them.
I don't recall in 2006-2008 that you put me down for being in the process of Christian to agnostic.
I doubt you discriminate, period, or do your best not to, on religious or any other grounds.

As in many cases, I think Bobby answers for himself quite well, but, put another way: given where I understand Bobby to live and work, I think he has many colleagues, acquaintances and friends from many walks of life. Am I correct, Bobby? Jew, Christian, Muslim, atheist, etc. ... ?

It's no secret that I live and work in NYC, and have done since sometime in 1999. I was raised Catholic, as was my partner. We are both atheists.

In terms of racial background, the apartment building in which we live has a reasonable cross section of NYC residents. During Jewish holidays we frequently get a knock on the door from members of the local orthodox community probably because, even after 8 years of living here, neither my partner nor I have taken the time to remove the Mezuzah that was, presumably, installed by a former resident.

The neighborhood also has a fairly large Bangladeshi community, and we're close enough to the local mosque to hear the adhan.

Given that the local populace generally does not walk around with tags indicating which religion they follow, that's probably covers the most visible religious affiliations. I don't doubt that there are a fair number of Christians of various denominations nearby too. There are certainly churches nearby.

And I can imagine you're friendly with a lot of them.
I don't recall in 2006-2008 that you put me down for being in the process of Christian to agnostic.
I doubt you discriminate, period, or do your best not to, on religious or any other grounds.

Thanks, and before anybody tells us "to get a room", perhaps we should return to the topic at hand, which I believe was something about which brand of Abrahamic extremist would you prefer to be running the area in which you live.

I emigrated from a nation that has a monarch "by the grace of God", who is ex-officio head of state and supreme governor of the state religion, to a nation that explicitly prohibits the establishment of a nationwide (or, indeed, statewide thanks to the 14th Amendment) religion. It may not surprise you that I'd be more interested in finding out why anybody would want to move to an area run by an Abrahamic extremist rather than almost anywhere else.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Thanks, and before anybody tells us "to get a room", perhaps we should return to the topic at hand, which I believe was something about which brand of Abrahamic extremist would you prefer to be running the area in which you live.

I emigrated from a nation that has a monarch "by the grace of God", who is ex-officio head of state and supreme governor of the state religion, to a nation that explicitly prohibits the establishment of a nationwide (or, indeed, statewide thanks to the 14th Amendment) religion. It may not surprise you that I'd be more interested in finding out why anybody would want to move to an area run by an Abrahamic extremist rather than almost anywhere else.

14th Amendment. Is this true today?

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

My question has nothing to do with Middle East but there are resemblances to what happen there right now.

Thanks, and before anybody tells us "to get a room", perhaps we should return to the topic at hand, which I believe was something about which brand of Abrahamic extremist would you prefer to be running the area in which you live.

I emigrated from a nation that has a monarch "by the grace of God", who is ex-officio head of state and supreme governor of the state religion, to a nation that explicitly prohibits the establishment of a nationwide (or, indeed, statewide thanks to the 14th Amendment) religion. It may not surprise you that I'd be more interested in finding out why anybody would want to move to an area run by an Abrahamic extremist rather than almost anywhere else.

14th Amendment. Is this true today?

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

My question has nothing to do with Middle East but there are resemblances to what happen there right now.

Well, janneseti, that is a bit of a tricky 'special case'.

'Indians not taxed'...

There are 566 Federally-recognized tribes of Native Americans here in the USA.

I am not sure of the exact number, but quite a number of them are effectively separate Nations, by Treaty with the US Federal Government, with their own Laws, their own Courts, their own police, their own Taxes, in short their own Governments.

The largest of these, to the best of my knowledge, is the Cherokee Nation, with about 315,000 citizens.

Now then, since they have their own Taxes, or at least the power to enact and collect their own Taxes, it wouldn't be 'right' for the US Federal Govt. to tax them too.

Same with their being counted for purposes of apportionment of the members of the US House of Representatives.

Unlike other minorities in the USA, they ARE their own Separate Nations, by Treaty.

Thanks, and before anybody tells us "to get a room", perhaps we should return to the topic at hand, which I believe was something about which brand of Abrahamic extremist would you prefer to be running the area in which you live.

I emigrated from a nation that has a monarch "by the grace of God", who is ex-officio head of state and supreme governor of the state religion, to a nation that explicitly prohibits the establishment of a nationwide (or, indeed, statewide thanks to the 14th Amendment) religion. It may not surprise you that I'd be more interested in finding out why anybody would want to move to an area run by an Abrahamic extremist rather than almost anywhere else.

14th Amendment. Is this true today?

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

My question has nothing to do with Middle East but there are resemblances to what happen there right now.

Well, janneseti, that is a bit of a tricky 'special case'.

'Indians not taxed'...

There are 566 Federally-recognized tribes of Native Americans here in the USA.

I am not sure of the exact number, but quite a number of them are effectively separate Nations, by Treaty with the US Federal Government, with their own Laws, their own Courts, their own police, their own Taxes, in short their own Governments.

The largest of these, to the best of my knowledge, is the Cherokee Nation, with about 315,000 citizens.

Now then, since they have their own Taxes, or at least the power to enact and collect their own Taxes, it wouldn't be 'right' for the US Federal Govt. to tax them too.

Same with their being counted for purposes of apportionment of the members of the US House of Representatives.

Unlike other minorities in the USA, they ARE their own Separate Nations, by Treaty.

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/09/24/elections-2012-myth-never-leaves-indians-dont-pay-taxes-135495
Now back to the Mid-East please.

---

Thanks, and before anybody tells us "to get a room", perhaps we should return to the topic at hand, which I believe was something about which brand of Abrahamic extremist would you prefer to be running the area in which you live.

I emigrated from a nation that has a monarch "by the grace of God", who is ex-officio head of state and supreme governor of the state religion, to a nation that explicitly prohibits the establishment of a nationwide (or, indeed, statewide thanks to the 14th Amendment) religion. It may not surprise you that I'd be more interested in finding out why anybody would want to move to an area run by an Abrahamic extremist rather than almost anywhere else.

14th Amendment. Is this true today?

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

My question has nothing to do with Middle East but there are resemblances to what happen there right now.

Well, janneseti, that is a bit of a tricky 'special case'.
'Indians not taxed'...
There are 566 Federally-recognized tribes of Native Americans here in the USA.
I am not sure of the exact number, but quite a number of them are effectively separate Nations, by Treaty with the US Federal Government, with their own Laws, their own Courts, their own police, their own Taxes, in short their own Governments.
The largest of these, to the best of my knowledge, is the Cherokee Nation, with about 315,000 citizens.
Now then, since they have their own Taxes, or at least the power to enact and collect their own Taxes, it wouldn't be 'right' for the US Federal Govt. to tax them too.
Same with their being counted for purposes of apportionment of the members of the US House of Representatives.
Unlike other minorities in the USA, they ARE their own Separate Nations, by Treaty.

Sounds very much like Sápmi to me:)
The Sami nation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A1pmi
Norway, Finland and Sweden all have Sami Parliaments that to varying degrees are involved in governing the region—though mostly they only have authority over the matters of the Sami citizens of the states in which they are situated.
In Russia there is no Sami Parliament.

Then we have Kurdistan located in Turkey, Iraq and Iran...
Biji Kurdistan and Dalkurd Football Club.

Dalkurd FC plays in Dalarna Sweden and they like to call themself the National team of Kurdistan.

@Gary Native Americans will continue to pay taxes – despite the mythology.
And so do Sames and Kurds.

Nosh:)

Returning to the topic:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/11/03/world/middleeast/ap-ml-israel-palestinians.html

JERUSALEM — The Israeli military raided a Palestinian radio station in the West Bank on Tuesday and confiscated equipment it said was being used to broadcast calls to attack Israelis.

The military said it shut down the Al Hurria radio station in the city of Hebron overnight, accusing it of inciting violence.

---