Page 3 of 9 First 1234567 ... Last
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    4
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by adouglasmhor View Post
    Not true at all, sorry. It's a work knife as well as a weapon, I think the confusion started with the Khukuri ceremony when you cut yourself with it on being given it for the first time. I have seen Gurkhas cutting veggies to go in a curry, opening tins and cutting brush with them.
    The guy in the army surplus store told me, when I was looking at Khukuri's, that if someone touches your knife, it must taste their blood. Is this just a variation on the same myth, or a truth in which the myth might originate?

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Since this is the no-bullshit MMA site get your facts straight Phrost.

    1) The Ghurkas were never ordered to bring back the body only to get a positive ID on the target.
    2) A Ghurka private took his own initiative to decapitate the body.
    3) Decapitation is a violation of the Geneva Convention.

    My personal opinion is that it's hilarious that the dude cut off the man's head but your soft assertions in your post that the Chain of Command somehow engendered this beheading by giving them an order that unnecessarily endangered the soldiers and caused this action is wrong. The guy decided to cut off the head on his own.

    Secondly, the British government literally had no other option in this case. The man beheaded a fallen enemy combatant contrary to modern rules of engagement. Armchair generals can posture on the Internet but we and our allies adhere to the Geneva Convention for the protection of our own soldiers. Yes the Taliban are barbaric but unless you are okay with 1 billion muslims plus the Chinese plus whatever other future adversaries cutting the heads off our boys as a matter of course go easy on the He-Man jingoism and racism about those camel jockeys.

    Agree on the other stuff about the ghurkas guess you read the Daily Mail article judging from your post.

  3. #23
    Just waiting for the paperboy. supporting member
    Lebell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Lolland
    Posts
    12,492
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Carborundum View Post
    The guy in the army surplus store told me, when I was looking at Khukuri's, that if someone touches your knife, it must taste their blood. Is this just a variation on the same myth, or a truth in which the myth might originate?
    Did you ever hear about the ' Kris'? some weird magical weapon from indonesia.
    A familymember took a couple of them with him when he came back from the politional actions over there.
    appearantly the previous owners were dead so he could take em.
    ever since bad things happened, accidents, illnesses, etc.
    as soon as they got rid of the knife it stopped.
    its one of those weird stories that run in the family.

  4. #24
    Phrost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 1998
    Location
    Cow Town
    Posts
    19,137
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by shalom View Post
    Since this is the no-bullshit MMA site get your facts straight Phrost.

    1) The Ghurkas were never ordered to bring back the body only to get a positive ID on the target.
    2) A Ghurka private took his own initiative to decapitate the body.
    3) Decapitation is a violation of the Geneva Convention.

    My personal opinion is that it's hilarious that the dude cut off the man's head but your soft assertions in your post that the Chain of Command somehow engendered this beheading by giving them an order that unnecessarily endangered the soldiers and caused this action is wrong. The guy decided to cut off the head on his own.

    Secondly, the British government literally had no other option in this case. The man beheaded a fallen enemy combatant contrary to modern rules of engagement. Armchair generals can posture on the Internet but we and our allies adhere to the Geneva Convention for the protection of our own soldiers. Yes the Taliban are barbaric but unless you are okay with 1 billion muslims plus the Chinese plus whatever other future adversaries cutting the heads off our boys as a matter of course go easy on the He-Man jingoism and racism about those camel jockeys.
    The simplest response here is:

    The Taliban are not covered by the Geneva Convention.

    Also, **** you for implying I'm a racist. Seriously. ****. You. There is no racism whatsoever in this article, unless you're one of the assholes who like to whip out a rubber race card in any situation they feel it'd be useful to support their weak arguments, stretching it out so far that it's thin enough for anyone with half a brain to see through.

    The Taliban are not a race, nor are they a uniformed military.

    So, again, **** you.

  5. #25
    OZZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    London,Ontario Canada
    Posts
    3,343
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Excellent choice Phrost..these guys are badass as badass gets.
    Whoever the douche was that decided to put this guy up on charges - I hope he gets a pencil jammed up his bureaucratic ass.
    As you stated..the Taliban are not protected by the Geneva Convention because they are a terrorist group and do not represent any form of recognized government. Besides, there was no reason for this incident to even become privy to the general public. The Officers in charge of this group should have quietly reprimanded the soldier behind closed doors and told him not to do it again , and then forgotten about it.
    Last edited by OZZ; 8/15/2010 12:19pm at .
    " If one wants to have a friend one must also want to wage war for him: and to wage war one must be capable of being an enemy." - Fr. Nietzsche 'On The Friend' Thus Spake Zarathustra

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Tampere, Finland
    Posts
    252
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I'm not sure if this even violates the Geneva conventions. As I understand, it mostly pertains to living soldiers, and while mutilating corpses for shits and giggles is bad, I can see why bringing an assassinated leader's head back for positive ID would be a valid reason.

    Part of the stink being raised is about this being somehow insulting to the general Afghan population, who bury all the parts of the deceased they can find. I'm wondering if anyone from the actual Afghan population supposedly insulted actually minds.

  7. #27
    Tonuzaba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Slovakia
    Posts
    5,618
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I personally think that under certain conditions there's nothing wrong with taking the killed enemy leaders head for identification, if there's no better way to do it - I think who seriously f*cked up here is the person who sold this story to the media.

    Phrost, I think shalom deserved fewer f*ck you-s, as I view his/her post a postive one. After all, officially we are the good guys who don't do barbaric acts in a war. Media boo-hoo about stuff like this can hurt this picture, if it can be hurt any more nowadays.

    CLICK & WATCH
    :
    I got BULLSHIDO ON TV!!!

    "Bruce Lee sucks because I slammed my nuts with nunchucks trying to do that stupid **** back in the day. I still managed to have two kids. I forgive you Bruce.
    " - by Vorpal

  8. #28
    danno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Shoalhaven, Australia
    Posts
    3,151
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by OZZ View Post
    there was no reason for this incident to even become privy to the general public. The Officers in charge of this group should have quietly reprimanded the soldier behind closed doors and told him not to do it again , and then forgotten about it.
    agreed.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    2,487
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Shalom is correct.

    Second Geneva convention 1949 article 18: Art 18.
    "After each engagement, Parties to the conflict shall, without delay, take all possible measures to search for and collect the shipwrecked, wounded and sick, to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment, to ensure their adequate care, and to search for the dead and prevent their being despoiled."

    Meaning: Decapitating, cutting off ears, hanging-drawing-and-quartering and any abuse or mockery of enemy corpses is a violation of the Geneva convention.

  10. #30
    battlefields's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Australia, Land of Oz
    Posts
    5,271
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    The Taliban were defined by the US as "enemy combatants", not soldiers, IIRC, which made them exempt from Geneva Convention treaties. The Allies could do whatever the **** they want with them, as long as our media never got wind of it it would have been considered par for the course. This looks like an event that the media sniffed out, therefore the Gurkha got turfed.

Page 3 of 9 First 1234567 ... Last

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO